Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
 Search Hadoop and all its subprojects:

Switch to Threaded View
HBase >> mail # user >> Using the Hadoop bundled in the lib directory of HBase


Copy link to this message
-
Re: Using the Hadoop bundled in the lib directory of HBase
Yes, I simply took the Hadoop 0.20.2 release, deleted its hadoop-core.jar,
and replaced it with the contents of
lib/hadoop-core-0.20-append-r1056497.jar from hbase.

I'm not sure what to do with "this approach might work".  How can I know
if it really does?

BTW, I see that HBase's lib/hadoop-core-0.20-append-r1056497.jar contains
org/apache/hadoop/hdfs/server/datanode/BlockChannel.class but I am having
trouble figuring out why.  From where in SVN does that come?

Thanks,
Mike Spreitzer
From:   Ryan Rawson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:     [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc:     stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date:   02/13/2011 02:33 AM
Subject:        Re: Using the Hadoop bundled in the lib directory of HBase

If you are taking the jar that we ship and slamming it in a hadoop
0.20.2 based distro that might work.  I'm not sure if there are any
differences than pure code (which would then be expressed in the jar
only), so this approach might work.

You could also check out to the revision that we built our JAR and
trying that. By default you need apache forrest (argh) and java5 to
build hadoop (ARGH) which makes it not buildable on OSX.

Building sucks, there are no short cuts. Good luck out there!
-ryan

On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 11:24 PM, Mike Spreitzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Let me be clear about the amount of testing I did: extremely little.  I
> should also point out that at first I did not appreciate fully the
meaning
> of you earlier comment to Vijay saying "this is a little off" --- I now
> realize you were in fact saying that Vijay told me to do things
backward.
>
> Since my note saying the backward approach worked, two things have
> happened: (1) someone make a link to it from (
> http://hbase.apache.org/notsoquick.html), and (2) Ryan Rowson replied
> saying, in no uncertain terms, that the backward approach is unreliable.
I
> would not have noticed a reliability issue in the negligible testing I
> did.
>
> Having gotten two opposite opinions, I am now unsure of the truth of the
> matter.  Is there any chance of Vijay and Ryan agreeing?
>
> Thanks,
> Mike Spreitzer
> SMTP: [EMAIL PROTECTED], Lotus Notes: Mike Spreitzer/Watson/IBM
> Office phone: +1-914-784-6424 (IBM T/L 863-)
> AOL Instant Messaging: M1k3Sprtzr
>