Gregory Chanan
2012-08-31, 22:13
lars hofhansl
2012-08-31, 22:55
Ted Yu
2012-08-31, 23:03
Gregory Chanan
2012-08-31, 23:06
Stack
2012-08-31, 23:21
lars hofhansl
2012-08-31, 23:24
lars hofhansl
2012-08-31, 23:41
Gregory Chanan
2012-09-01, 00:54
Jonathan Hsieh
2012-09-01, 00:55
lars hofhansl
2012-09-01, 01:34
lars hofhansl
2012-09-01, 02:02
Gregory Chanan
2012-09-01, 02:42
lars hofhansl
2012-09-01, 03:21
Gregory Chanan
2012-09-01, 04:29
Ramkrishna.S.Vasudevan
2012-09-03, 04:44
Lars H
2012-09-03, 18:20
-
0.92/0.94 compatibility and HBASE-5206Gregory Chanan 2012-08-31, 22:13
There has been some discussion on the JIRA lately about what to do about a
0.92/0.94 compatibility issue. I wanted to bring this up to a larger
audience in order to solicit additional opinions.
HBASE-5206 (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5206), which is in
0.94.0 and 0.94.1, breaks compatibility with 0.92.0 and 0.92.1. The issue
is described in the release notes for HBASE-5155 (of which HBASE-5206 is a
forward port). Excerpted here:
This issue is an incompatible change.
If an HBase client with the changes for HBASE-5155 and a server (master)
without the changes for HBASE-5155 is used, then the is_enabled (from HBase
Shell) or isTableEnabled() (from HBaseAdmin) will return false though the
table is already enabled as per the master.
If the HBase client does have the changes for HBASE-5155 and the server
does not have the changes for HBASE-5155, then if we try to Enable a table
then the client will hang.
The reason is because,
Prior to HBASE-5155 once the table is enabled the znode in the zookeeper
created for the table is deleted.
After HBASE-5155 once the table is enabled the znode in the zookeeper
created for the table is not deleted, whereas the same node is updated with
the status ENABLED.
The client also expects the status of the znode in the zookeeper to be in
the ENABLED state if the table has been enabled successfully.
The above changes makes the client behaviour incompatible if the client
does not have this fix whereas the server has this fix.
If both the client and the server does not have this fix, then the
behaviour is as expected.
So we have a situation where 0.92.0 and 0.92.1 clients are not compatible
with 0.94.0 and 0.94.1 servers and visa-versa.
The issue is, what should we do about the 0.94.2 server? As far as I can
tell, we cannot make both {0.92.0,0.92.1} and {0.94.0,0.94.1} clients
happy. I propose we make the 0.94.2 server compatible with the {0.92.0,
0.92.1} client set. My thinking is that we should optimize for the most
common use case. Given that both CDH4 and HDP 1.0 ship 0.92.1, and that
0.94 is relatively new, it seems more likely that users will upgrade
servers from 0.92.1 to 0.94.2+ than from an earlier 0.94 version. I think
we can do this while actually fixing the issue that HBASE-5206 purports to
fix by moving the ENABLED state to a different znode. I'll even volunteer
to do that :). I don't think there is an obvious or easy answer here, so
wanted to get other's opinions.
As for the client, HBASE-6268 (
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-6268) was introduced in 0.92.2
to handle both cases of servers ({0.92.0,0.92.1} and {0.94.0,0.94.1}) by
accepting both possibilities for the table znode. I think that approach
works whether we leave the server as is or go with what I've proposed --
but we should test.
Greg
0.92/0.94 compatibility issue. I wanted to bring this up to a larger
audience in order to solicit additional opinions.
HBASE-5206 (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5206), which is in
0.94.0 and 0.94.1, breaks compatibility with 0.92.0 and 0.92.1. The issue
is described in the release notes for HBASE-5155 (of which HBASE-5206 is a
forward port). Excerpted here:
This issue is an incompatible change.
If an HBase client with the changes for HBASE-5155 and a server (master)
without the changes for HBASE-5155 is used, then the is_enabled (from HBase
Shell) or isTableEnabled() (from HBaseAdmin) will return false though the
table is already enabled as per the master.
If the HBase client does have the changes for HBASE-5155 and the server
does not have the changes for HBASE-5155, then if we try to Enable a table
then the client will hang.
The reason is because,
Prior to HBASE-5155 once the table is enabled the znode in the zookeeper
created for the table is deleted.
After HBASE-5155 once the table is enabled the znode in the zookeeper
created for the table is not deleted, whereas the same node is updated with
the status ENABLED.
The client also expects the status of the znode in the zookeeper to be in
the ENABLED state if the table has been enabled successfully.
The above changes makes the client behaviour incompatible if the client
does not have this fix whereas the server has this fix.
If both the client and the server does not have this fix, then the
behaviour is as expected.
So we have a situation where 0.92.0 and 0.92.1 clients are not compatible
with 0.94.0 and 0.94.1 servers and visa-versa.
The issue is, what should we do about the 0.94.2 server? As far as I can
tell, we cannot make both {0.92.0,0.92.1} and {0.94.0,0.94.1} clients
happy. I propose we make the 0.94.2 server compatible with the {0.92.0,
0.92.1} client set. My thinking is that we should optimize for the most
common use case. Given that both CDH4 and HDP 1.0 ship 0.92.1, and that
0.94 is relatively new, it seems more likely that users will upgrade
servers from 0.92.1 to 0.94.2+ than from an earlier 0.94 version. I think
we can do this while actually fixing the issue that HBASE-5206 purports to
fix by moving the ENABLED state to a different znode. I'll even volunteer
to do that :). I don't think there is an obvious or easy answer here, so
wanted to get other's opinions.
As for the client, HBASE-6268 (
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-6268) was introduced in 0.92.2
to handle both cases of servers ({0.92.0,0.92.1} and {0.94.0,0.94.1}) by
accepting both possibilities for the table znode. I think that approach
works whether we leave the server as is or go with what I've proposed --
but we should test.
Greg
-
Re: 0.92/0.94 compatibility and HBASE-5206lars hofhansl 2012-08-31, 22:55
Won't we then break compatibility between 0.94.0 and 0.94.1 with 0.94.2?
I do not have a strong opinion about this.
It was my fault that HBASE-5206 slipped into 0.94.0, I apologize for that.
I was going to spin the first 0.94.2 today. Is the general consensus that I should wait?
-- Lars
________________________________
From: Gregory Chanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 3:13 PM
Subject: 0.92/0.94 compatibility and HBASE-5206
There has been some discussion on the JIRA lately about what to do about a
0.92/0.94 compatibility issue. I wanted to bring this up to a larger
audience in order to solicit additional opinions.
HBASE-5206 (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5206), which is in
0.94.0 and 0.94.1, breaks compatibility with 0.92.0 and 0.92.1. The issue
is described in the release notes for HBASE-5155 (of which HBASE-5206 is a
forward port). Excerpted here:
This issue is an incompatible change.
If an HBase client with the changes for HBASE-5155 and a server (master)
without the changes for HBASE-5155 is used, then the is_enabled (from HBase
Shell) or isTableEnabled() (from HBaseAdmin) will return false though the
table is already enabled as per the master.
If the HBase client does have the changes for HBASE-5155 and the server
does not have the changes for HBASE-5155, then if we try to Enable a table
then the client will hang.
The reason is because,
Prior to HBASE-5155 once the table is enabled the znode in the zookeeper
created for the table is deleted.
After HBASE-5155 once the table is enabled the znode in the zookeeper
created for the table is not deleted, whereas the same node is updated with
the status ENABLED.
The client also expects the status of the znode in the zookeeper to be in
the ENABLED state if the table has been enabled successfully.
The above changes makes the client behaviour incompatible if the client
does not have this fix whereas the server has this fix.
If both the client and the server does not have this fix, then the
behaviour is as expected.
So we have a situation where 0.92.0 and 0.92.1 clients are not compatible
with 0.94.0 and 0.94.1 servers and visa-versa.
The issue is, what should we do about the 0.94.2 server? As far as I can
tell, we cannot make both {0.92.0,0.92.1} and {0.94.0,0.94.1} clients
happy. I propose we make the 0.94.2 server compatible with the {0.92.0,
0.92.1} client set. My thinking is that we should optimize for the most
common use case. Given that both CDH4 and HDP 1.0 ship 0.92.1, and that
0.94 is relatively new, it seems more likely that users will upgrade
servers from 0.92.1 to 0.94.2+ than from an earlier 0.94 version. I think
we can do this while actually fixing the issue that HBASE-5206 purports to
fix by moving the ENABLED state to a different znode. I'll even volunteer
to do that :). I don't think there is an obvious or easy answer here, so
wanted to get other's opinions.
As for the client, HBASE-6268 (
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-6268) was introduced in 0.92.2
to handle both cases of servers ({0.92.0,0.92.1} and {0.94.0,0.94.1}) by
accepting both possibilities for the table znode. I think that approach
works whether we leave the server as is or go with what I've proposed --
but we should test.
Greg
I do not have a strong opinion about this.
It was my fault that HBASE-5206 slipped into 0.94.0, I apologize for that.
I was going to spin the first 0.94.2 today. Is the general consensus that I should wait?
-- Lars
________________________________
From: Gregory Chanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 3:13 PM
Subject: 0.92/0.94 compatibility and HBASE-5206
There has been some discussion on the JIRA lately about what to do about a
0.92/0.94 compatibility issue. I wanted to bring this up to a larger
audience in order to solicit additional opinions.
HBASE-5206 (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5206), which is in
0.94.0 and 0.94.1, breaks compatibility with 0.92.0 and 0.92.1. The issue
is described in the release notes for HBASE-5155 (of which HBASE-5206 is a
forward port). Excerpted here:
This issue is an incompatible change.
If an HBase client with the changes for HBASE-5155 and a server (master)
without the changes for HBASE-5155 is used, then the is_enabled (from HBase
Shell) or isTableEnabled() (from HBaseAdmin) will return false though the
table is already enabled as per the master.
If the HBase client does have the changes for HBASE-5155 and the server
does not have the changes for HBASE-5155, then if we try to Enable a table
then the client will hang.
The reason is because,
Prior to HBASE-5155 once the table is enabled the znode in the zookeeper
created for the table is deleted.
After HBASE-5155 once the table is enabled the znode in the zookeeper
created for the table is not deleted, whereas the same node is updated with
the status ENABLED.
The client also expects the status of the znode in the zookeeper to be in
the ENABLED state if the table has been enabled successfully.
The above changes makes the client behaviour incompatible if the client
does not have this fix whereas the server has this fix.
If both the client and the server does not have this fix, then the
behaviour is as expected.
So we have a situation where 0.92.0 and 0.92.1 clients are not compatible
with 0.94.0 and 0.94.1 servers and visa-versa.
The issue is, what should we do about the 0.94.2 server? As far as I can
tell, we cannot make both {0.92.0,0.92.1} and {0.94.0,0.94.1} clients
happy. I propose we make the 0.94.2 server compatible with the {0.92.0,
0.92.1} client set. My thinking is that we should optimize for the most
common use case. Given that both CDH4 and HDP 1.0 ship 0.92.1, and that
0.94 is relatively new, it seems more likely that users will upgrade
servers from 0.92.1 to 0.94.2+ than from an earlier 0.94 version. I think
we can do this while actually fixing the issue that HBASE-5206 purports to
fix by moving the ENABLED state to a different znode. I'll even volunteer
to do that :). I don't think there is an obvious or easy answer here, so
wanted to get other's opinions.
As for the client, HBASE-6268 (
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-6268) was introduced in 0.92.2
to handle both cases of servers ({0.92.0,0.92.1} and {0.94.0,0.94.1}) by
accepting both possibilities for the table znode. I think that approach
works whether we leave the server as is or go with what I've proposed --
but we should test.
Greg
-
Re: 0.92/0.94 compatibility and HBASE-5206Ted Yu 2012-08-31, 23:03
I should also apologize for HBASE-5206 where I didn't maintain
compatibility in the first place.
We just need to find the solution which minimizes impact of this issue.
Cheers
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 3:55 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Won't we then break compatibility between 0.94.0 and 0.94.1 with 0.94.2?
> I do not have a strong opinion about this.
>
> It was my fault that HBASE-5206 slipped into 0.94.0, I apologize for that.
>
> I was going to spin the first 0.94.2 today. Is the general consensus that
> I should wait?
>
>
> -- Lars
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Gregory Chanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 3:13 PM
> Subject: 0.92/0.94 compatibility and HBASE-5206
>
> There has been some discussion on the JIRA lately about what to do about a
> 0.92/0.94 compatibility issue. I wanted to bring this up to a larger
> audience in order to solicit additional opinions.
>
> HBASE-5206 (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5206), which is in
> 0.94.0 and 0.94.1, breaks compatibility with 0.92.0 and 0.92.1. The issue
> is described in the release notes for HBASE-5155 (of which HBASE-5206 is a
> forward port). Excerpted here:
>
> This issue is an incompatible change.
> If an HBase client with the changes for HBASE-5155 and a server (master)
> without the changes for HBASE-5155 is used, then the is_enabled (from HBase
> Shell) or isTableEnabled() (from HBaseAdmin) will return false though the
> table is already enabled as per the master.
>
> If the HBase client does have the changes for HBASE-5155 and the server
> does not have the changes for HBASE-5155, then if we try to Enable a table
> then the client will hang.
>
> The reason is because,
> Prior to HBASE-5155 once the table is enabled the znode in the zookeeper
> created for the table is deleted.
> After HBASE-5155 once the table is enabled the znode in the zookeeper
> created for the table is not deleted, whereas the same node is updated with
> the status ENABLED.
>
> The client also expects the status of the znode in the zookeeper to be in
> the ENABLED state if the table has been enabled successfully.
> The above changes makes the client behaviour incompatible if the client
> does not have this fix whereas the server has this fix.
> If both the client and the server does not have this fix, then the
> behaviour is as expected.
>
> So we have a situation where 0.92.0 and 0.92.1 clients are not compatible
> with 0.94.0 and 0.94.1 servers and visa-versa.
>
> The issue is, what should we do about the 0.94.2 server? As far as I can
> tell, we cannot make both {0.92.0,0.92.1} and {0.94.0,0.94.1} clients
> happy. I propose we make the 0.94.2 server compatible with the {0.92.0,
> 0.92.1} client set. My thinking is that we should optimize for the most
> common use case. Given that both CDH4 and HDP 1.0 ship 0.92.1, and that
> 0.94 is relatively new, it seems more likely that users will upgrade
> servers from 0.92.1 to 0.94.2+ than from an earlier 0.94 version. I think
> we can do this while actually fixing the issue that HBASE-5206 purports to
> fix by moving the ENABLED state to a different znode. I'll even volunteer
> to do that :). I don't think there is an obvious or easy answer here, so
> wanted to get other's opinions.
>
> As for the client, HBASE-6268 (
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-6268) was introduced in 0.92.2
> to handle both cases of servers ({0.92.0,0.92.1} and {0.94.0,0.94.1}) by
> accepting both possibilities for the table znode. I think that approach
> works whether we leave the server as is or go with what I've proposed --
> but we should test.
>
> Greg
compatibility in the first place.
We just need to find the solution which minimizes impact of this issue.
Cheers
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 3:55 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Won't we then break compatibility between 0.94.0 and 0.94.1 with 0.94.2?
> I do not have a strong opinion about this.
>
> It was my fault that HBASE-5206 slipped into 0.94.0, I apologize for that.
>
> I was going to spin the first 0.94.2 today. Is the general consensus that
> I should wait?
>
>
> -- Lars
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Gregory Chanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 3:13 PM
> Subject: 0.92/0.94 compatibility and HBASE-5206
>
> There has been some discussion on the JIRA lately about what to do about a
> 0.92/0.94 compatibility issue. I wanted to bring this up to a larger
> audience in order to solicit additional opinions.
>
> HBASE-5206 (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5206), which is in
> 0.94.0 and 0.94.1, breaks compatibility with 0.92.0 and 0.92.1. The issue
> is described in the release notes for HBASE-5155 (of which HBASE-5206 is a
> forward port). Excerpted here:
>
> This issue is an incompatible change.
> If an HBase client with the changes for HBASE-5155 and a server (master)
> without the changes for HBASE-5155 is used, then the is_enabled (from HBase
> Shell) or isTableEnabled() (from HBaseAdmin) will return false though the
> table is already enabled as per the master.
>
> If the HBase client does have the changes for HBASE-5155 and the server
> does not have the changes for HBASE-5155, then if we try to Enable a table
> then the client will hang.
>
> The reason is because,
> Prior to HBASE-5155 once the table is enabled the znode in the zookeeper
> created for the table is deleted.
> After HBASE-5155 once the table is enabled the znode in the zookeeper
> created for the table is not deleted, whereas the same node is updated with
> the status ENABLED.
>
> The client also expects the status of the znode in the zookeeper to be in
> the ENABLED state if the table has been enabled successfully.
> The above changes makes the client behaviour incompatible if the client
> does not have this fix whereas the server has this fix.
> If both the client and the server does not have this fix, then the
> behaviour is as expected.
>
> So we have a situation where 0.92.0 and 0.92.1 clients are not compatible
> with 0.94.0 and 0.94.1 servers and visa-versa.
>
> The issue is, what should we do about the 0.94.2 server? As far as I can
> tell, we cannot make both {0.92.0,0.92.1} and {0.94.0,0.94.1} clients
> happy. I propose we make the 0.94.2 server compatible with the {0.92.0,
> 0.92.1} client set. My thinking is that we should optimize for the most
> common use case. Given that both CDH4 and HDP 1.0 ship 0.92.1, and that
> 0.94 is relatively new, it seems more likely that users will upgrade
> servers from 0.92.1 to 0.94.2+ than from an earlier 0.94 version. I think
> we can do this while actually fixing the issue that HBASE-5206 purports to
> fix by moving the ENABLED state to a different znode. I'll even volunteer
> to do that :). I don't think there is an obvious or easy answer here, so
> wanted to get other's opinions.
>
> As for the client, HBASE-6268 (
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-6268) was introduced in 0.92.2
> to handle both cases of servers ({0.92.0,0.92.1} and {0.94.0,0.94.1}) by
> accepting both possibilities for the table znode. I think that approach
> works whether we leave the server as is or go with what I've proposed --
> but we should test.
>
> Greg
-
Re: 0.92/0.94 compatibility and HBASE-5206Gregory Chanan 2012-08-31, 23:06
@Lars:
you are correct that this would break compatibility between {0.94.0,
0.94.1} and 0.94.2.
We clearly need better compatibility testing, these issues are hard to find
by just looking at patches.
Greg
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 4:03 PM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I should also apologize for HBASE-5206 where I didn't maintain
> compatibility in the first place.
>
> We just need to find the solution which minimizes impact of this issue.
>
> Cheers
>
> On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 3:55 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > Won't we then break compatibility between 0.94.0 and 0.94.1 with 0.94.2?
> > I do not have a strong opinion about this.
> >
> > It was my fault that HBASE-5206 slipped into 0.94.0, I apologize for
> that.
> >
> > I was going to spin the first 0.94.2 today. Is the general consensus that
> > I should wait?
> >
> >
> > -- Lars
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Gregory Chanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 3:13 PM
> > Subject: 0.92/0.94 compatibility and HBASE-5206
> >
> > There has been some discussion on the JIRA lately about what to do about
> a
> > 0.92/0.94 compatibility issue. I wanted to bring this up to a larger
> > audience in order to solicit additional opinions.
> >
> > HBASE-5206 (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5206), which is
> in
> > 0.94.0 and 0.94.1, breaks compatibility with 0.92.0 and 0.92.1. The
> issue
> > is described in the release notes for HBASE-5155 (of which HBASE-5206 is
> a
> > forward port). Excerpted here:
> >
> > This issue is an incompatible change.
> > If an HBase client with the changes for HBASE-5155 and a server
> (master)
> > without the changes for HBASE-5155 is used, then the is_enabled (from
> HBase
> > Shell) or isTableEnabled() (from HBaseAdmin) will return false though the
> > table is already enabled as per the master.
> >
> > If the HBase client does have the changes for HBASE-5155 and the server
> > does not have the changes for HBASE-5155, then if we try to Enable a
> table
> > then the client will hang.
> >
> > The reason is because,
> > Prior to HBASE-5155 once the table is enabled the znode in the
> zookeeper
> > created for the table is deleted.
> > After HBASE-5155 once the table is enabled the znode in the zookeeper
> > created for the table is not deleted, whereas the same node is updated
> with
> > the status ENABLED.
> >
> > The client also expects the status of the znode in the zookeeper to be
> in
> > the ENABLED state if the table has been enabled successfully.
> > The above changes makes the client behaviour incompatible if the client
> > does not have this fix whereas the server has this fix.
> > If both the client and the server does not have this fix, then the
> > behaviour is as expected.
> >
> > So we have a situation where 0.92.0 and 0.92.1 clients are not compatible
> > with 0.94.0 and 0.94.1 servers and visa-versa.
> >
> > The issue is, what should we do about the 0.94.2 server? As far as I can
> > tell, we cannot make both {0.92.0,0.92.1} and {0.94.0,0.94.1} clients
> > happy. I propose we make the 0.94.2 server compatible with the {0.92.0,
> > 0.92.1} client set. My thinking is that we should optimize for the most
> > common use case. Given that both CDH4 and HDP 1.0 ship 0.92.1, and that
> > 0.94 is relatively new, it seems more likely that users will upgrade
> > servers from 0.92.1 to 0.94.2+ than from an earlier 0.94 version. I
> think
> > we can do this while actually fixing the issue that HBASE-5206 purports
> to
> > fix by moving the ENABLED state to a different znode. I'll even
> volunteer
> > to do that :). I don't think there is an obvious or easy answer here, so
> > wanted to get other's opinions.
> >
> > As for the client, HBASE-6268 (
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-6268) was introduced in
> 0.92.2
> > to handle both cases of servers ({0.92.0,0.92.1} and {0.94.0,0.94.1}) by
you are correct that this would break compatibility between {0.94.0,
0.94.1} and 0.94.2.
We clearly need better compatibility testing, these issues are hard to find
by just looking at patches.
Greg
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 4:03 PM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I should also apologize for HBASE-5206 where I didn't maintain
> compatibility in the first place.
>
> We just need to find the solution which minimizes impact of this issue.
>
> Cheers
>
> On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 3:55 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > Won't we then break compatibility between 0.94.0 and 0.94.1 with 0.94.2?
> > I do not have a strong opinion about this.
> >
> > It was my fault that HBASE-5206 slipped into 0.94.0, I apologize for
> that.
> >
> > I was going to spin the first 0.94.2 today. Is the general consensus that
> > I should wait?
> >
> >
> > -- Lars
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Gregory Chanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 3:13 PM
> > Subject: 0.92/0.94 compatibility and HBASE-5206
> >
> > There has been some discussion on the JIRA lately about what to do about
> a
> > 0.92/0.94 compatibility issue. I wanted to bring this up to a larger
> > audience in order to solicit additional opinions.
> >
> > HBASE-5206 (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5206), which is
> in
> > 0.94.0 and 0.94.1, breaks compatibility with 0.92.0 and 0.92.1. The
> issue
> > is described in the release notes for HBASE-5155 (of which HBASE-5206 is
> a
> > forward port). Excerpted here:
> >
> > This issue is an incompatible change.
> > If an HBase client with the changes for HBASE-5155 and a server
> (master)
> > without the changes for HBASE-5155 is used, then the is_enabled (from
> HBase
> > Shell) or isTableEnabled() (from HBaseAdmin) will return false though the
> > table is already enabled as per the master.
> >
> > If the HBase client does have the changes for HBASE-5155 and the server
> > does not have the changes for HBASE-5155, then if we try to Enable a
> table
> > then the client will hang.
> >
> > The reason is because,
> > Prior to HBASE-5155 once the table is enabled the znode in the
> zookeeper
> > created for the table is deleted.
> > After HBASE-5155 once the table is enabled the znode in the zookeeper
> > created for the table is not deleted, whereas the same node is updated
> with
> > the status ENABLED.
> >
> > The client also expects the status of the znode in the zookeeper to be
> in
> > the ENABLED state if the table has been enabled successfully.
> > The above changes makes the client behaviour incompatible if the client
> > does not have this fix whereas the server has this fix.
> > If both the client and the server does not have this fix, then the
> > behaviour is as expected.
> >
> > So we have a situation where 0.92.0 and 0.92.1 clients are not compatible
> > with 0.94.0 and 0.94.1 servers and visa-versa.
> >
> > The issue is, what should we do about the 0.94.2 server? As far as I can
> > tell, we cannot make both {0.92.0,0.92.1} and {0.94.0,0.94.1} clients
> > happy. I propose we make the 0.94.2 server compatible with the {0.92.0,
> > 0.92.1} client set. My thinking is that we should optimize for the most
> > common use case. Given that both CDH4 and HDP 1.0 ship 0.92.1, and that
> > 0.94 is relatively new, it seems more likely that users will upgrade
> > servers from 0.92.1 to 0.94.2+ than from an earlier 0.94 version. I
> think
> > we can do this while actually fixing the issue that HBASE-5206 purports
> to
> > fix by moving the ENABLED state to a different znode. I'll even
> volunteer
> > to do that :). I don't think there is an obvious or easy answer here, so
> > wanted to get other's opinions.
> >
> > As for the client, HBASE-6268 (
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-6268) was introduced in
> 0.92.2
> > to handle both cases of servers ({0.92.0,0.92.1} and {0.94.0,0.94.1}) by
-
Re: 0.92/0.94 compatibility and HBASE-5206Stack 2012-08-31, 23:21
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 4:06 PM, Gregory Chanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> @Lars:
> you are correct that this would break compatibility between {0.94.0,
> 0.94.1} and 0.94.2.
>
First thanks for the writeup G.
How would we bring along the 0.94.1/0.94.0 crew (as few as I think
they are). Is there a script we need to write to map the old znode
state to the new that they should run upgrading from 0.94.{0,1} to
0.94.2?
> We clearly need better compatibility testing, these issues are hard to find
> by just looking at patches.
>
Yes. In my experience, only those who have been burned in the past
are the only ones who have any kind of nose for these kind of
incompatibility issues. We could add an Integration test that moves
through a matrix of differing regionserver/master/client versions
where versions are off by 1 exercising APIs and cluster ops.
St.Ack
> @Lars:
> you are correct that this would break compatibility between {0.94.0,
> 0.94.1} and 0.94.2.
>
First thanks for the writeup G.
How would we bring along the 0.94.1/0.94.0 crew (as few as I think
they are). Is there a script we need to write to map the old znode
state to the new that they should run upgrading from 0.94.{0,1} to
0.94.2?
> We clearly need better compatibility testing, these issues are hard to find
> by just looking at patches.
>
Yes. In my experience, only those who have been burned in the past
are the only ones who have any kind of nose for these kind of
incompatibility issues. We could add an Integration test that moves
through a matrix of differing regionserver/master/client versions
where versions are off by 1 exercising APIs and cluster ops.
St.Ack
-
Re: 0.92/0.94 compatibility and HBASE-5206lars hofhansl 2012-08-31, 23:24
What do you think we should do?
1. Breaking compatibility between minor versions is bad. (i.e. we should fix this in 0.92.2 as currently proposed)
2. At the same time 0.92 might be in wider distribution and that the upgrade path 0.94 might be more important (and include the fix that you propose).
I'm +1 on #1 and +0 on #2.
I agree we need better cross-version integration testing and be generally more diligent about this.
-- Lars
________________________________
From: Gregory Chanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 4:06 PM
Subject: Re: 0.92/0.94 compatibility and HBASE-5206
@Lars:
you are correct that this would break compatibility between {0.94.0,
0.94.1} and 0.94.2.
We clearly need better compatibility testing, these issues are hard to find
by just looking at patches.
Greg
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 4:03 PM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I should also apologize for HBASE-5206 where I didn't maintain
> compatibility in the first place.
>
> We just need to find the solution which minimizes impact of this issue.
>
> Cheers
>
> On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 3:55 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > Won't we then break compatibility between 0.94.0 and 0.94.1 with 0.94.2?
> > I do not have a strong opinion about this.
> >
> > It was my fault that HBASE-5206 slipped into 0.94.0, I apologize for
> that.
> >
> > I was going to spin the first 0.94.2 today. Is the general consensus that
> > I should wait?
> >
> >
> > -- Lars
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Gregory Chanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 3:13 PM
> > Subject: 0.92/0.94 compatibility and HBASE-5206
> >
> > There has been some discussion on the JIRA lately about what to do about
> a
> > 0.92/0.94 compatibility issue. I wanted to bring this up to a larger
> > audience in order to solicit additional opinions.
> >
> > HBASE-5206 (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5206), which is
> in
> > 0.94.0 and 0.94.1, breaks compatibility with 0.92.0 and 0.92.1. The
> issue
> > is described in the release notes for HBASE-5155 (of which HBASE-5206 is
> a
> > forward port). Excerpted here:
> >
> > This issue is an incompatible change.
> > If an HBase client with the changes for HBASE-5155 and a server
> (master)
> > without the changes for HBASE-5155 is used, then the is_enabled (from
> HBase
> > Shell) or isTableEnabled() (from HBaseAdmin) will return false though the
> > table is already enabled as per the master.
> >
> > If the HBase client does have the changes for HBASE-5155 and the server
> > does not have the changes for HBASE-5155, then if we try to Enable a
> table
> > then the client will hang.
> >
> > The reason is because,
> > Prior to HBASE-5155 once the table is enabled the znode in the
> zookeeper
> > created for the table is deleted.
> > After HBASE-5155 once the table is enabled the znode in the zookeeper
> > created for the table is not deleted, whereas the same node is updated
> with
> > the status ENABLED.
> >
> > The client also expects the status of the znode in the zookeeper to be
> in
> > the ENABLED state if the table has been enabled successfully.
> > The above changes makes the client behaviour incompatible if the client
> > does not have this fix whereas the server has this fix.
> > If both the client and the server does not have this fix, then the
> > behaviour is as expected.
> >
> > So we have a situation where 0.92.0 and 0.92.1 clients are not compatible
> > with 0.94.0 and 0.94.1 servers and visa-versa.
> >
> > The issue is, what should we do about the 0.94.2 server? As far as I can
> > tell, we cannot make both {0.92.0,0.92.1} and {0.94.0,0.94.1} clients
> > happy. I propose we make the 0.94.2 server compatible with the {0.92.0,
> > 0.92.1} client set. My thinking is that we should optimize for the most
> > common use case. Given that both CDH4 and HDP 1.0 ship 0.92.1, and that
1. Breaking compatibility between minor versions is bad. (i.e. we should fix this in 0.92.2 as currently proposed)
2. At the same time 0.92 might be in wider distribution and that the upgrade path 0.94 might be more important (and include the fix that you propose).
I'm +1 on #1 and +0 on #2.
I agree we need better cross-version integration testing and be generally more diligent about this.
-- Lars
________________________________
From: Gregory Chanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 4:06 PM
Subject: Re: 0.92/0.94 compatibility and HBASE-5206
@Lars:
you are correct that this would break compatibility between {0.94.0,
0.94.1} and 0.94.2.
We clearly need better compatibility testing, these issues are hard to find
by just looking at patches.
Greg
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 4:03 PM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I should also apologize for HBASE-5206 where I didn't maintain
> compatibility in the first place.
>
> We just need to find the solution which minimizes impact of this issue.
>
> Cheers
>
> On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 3:55 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > Won't we then break compatibility between 0.94.0 and 0.94.1 with 0.94.2?
> > I do not have a strong opinion about this.
> >
> > It was my fault that HBASE-5206 slipped into 0.94.0, I apologize for
> that.
> >
> > I was going to spin the first 0.94.2 today. Is the general consensus that
> > I should wait?
> >
> >
> > -- Lars
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Gregory Chanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 3:13 PM
> > Subject: 0.92/0.94 compatibility and HBASE-5206
> >
> > There has been some discussion on the JIRA lately about what to do about
> a
> > 0.92/0.94 compatibility issue. I wanted to bring this up to a larger
> > audience in order to solicit additional opinions.
> >
> > HBASE-5206 (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5206), which is
> in
> > 0.94.0 and 0.94.1, breaks compatibility with 0.92.0 and 0.92.1. The
> issue
> > is described in the release notes for HBASE-5155 (of which HBASE-5206 is
> a
> > forward port). Excerpted here:
> >
> > This issue is an incompatible change.
> > If an HBase client with the changes for HBASE-5155 and a server
> (master)
> > without the changes for HBASE-5155 is used, then the is_enabled (from
> HBase
> > Shell) or isTableEnabled() (from HBaseAdmin) will return false though the
> > table is already enabled as per the master.
> >
> > If the HBase client does have the changes for HBASE-5155 and the server
> > does not have the changes for HBASE-5155, then if we try to Enable a
> table
> > then the client will hang.
> >
> > The reason is because,
> > Prior to HBASE-5155 once the table is enabled the znode in the
> zookeeper
> > created for the table is deleted.
> > After HBASE-5155 once the table is enabled the znode in the zookeeper
> > created for the table is not deleted, whereas the same node is updated
> with
> > the status ENABLED.
> >
> > The client also expects the status of the znode in the zookeeper to be
> in
> > the ENABLED state if the table has been enabled successfully.
> > The above changes makes the client behaviour incompatible if the client
> > does not have this fix whereas the server has this fix.
> > If both the client and the server does not have this fix, then the
> > behaviour is as expected.
> >
> > So we have a situation where 0.92.0 and 0.92.1 clients are not compatible
> > with 0.94.0 and 0.94.1 servers and visa-versa.
> >
> > The issue is, what should we do about the 0.94.2 server? As far as I can
> > tell, we cannot make both {0.92.0,0.92.1} and {0.94.0,0.94.1} clients
> > happy. I propose we make the 0.94.2 server compatible with the {0.92.0,
> > 0.92.1} client set. My thinking is that we should optimize for the most
> > common use case. Given that both CDH4 and HDP 1.0 ship 0.92.1, and that
-
Re: 0.92/0.94 compatibility and HBASE-5206lars hofhansl 2012-08-31, 23:41
I guess you voiced your opinion in your initial email already (you prefer to break compatibility between 0.94.0/0.94.1 with 0.94.2).
If that is indeed the consensus, please file a jira against 0.94.2.
-- Lars
----- Original Message -----
From: lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 4:24 PM
Subject: Re: 0.92/0.94 compatibility and HBASE-5206
What do you think we should do?
1. Breaking compatibility between minor versions is bad. (i.e. we should fix this in 0.92.2 as currently proposed)
2. At the same time 0.92 might be in wider distribution and that the upgrade path 0.94 might be more important (and include the fix that you propose).
I'm +1 on #1 and +0 on #2.
I agree we need better cross-version integration testing and be generally more diligent about this.
-- Lars
________________________________
From: Gregory Chanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 4:06 PM
Subject: Re: 0.92/0.94 compatibility and HBASE-5206
@Lars:
you are correct that this would break compatibility between {0.94.0,
0.94.1} and 0.94.2.
We clearly need better compatibility testing, these issues are hard to find
by just looking at patches.
Greg
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 4:03 PM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I should also apologize for HBASE-5206 where I didn't maintain
> compatibility in the first place.
>
> We just need to find the solution which minimizes impact of this issue.
>
> Cheers
>
> On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 3:55 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > Won't we then break compatibility between 0.94.0 and 0.94.1 with 0.94.2?
> > I do not have a strong opinion about this.
> >
> > It was my fault that HBASE-5206 slipped into 0.94.0, I apologize for
> that.
> >
> > I was going to spin the first 0.94.2 today. Is the general consensus that
> > I should wait?
> >
> >
> > -- Lars
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Gregory Chanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 3:13 PM
> > Subject: 0.92/0.94 compatibility and HBASE-5206
> >
> > There has been some discussion on the JIRA lately about what to do about
> a
> > 0.92/0.94 compatibility issue. I wanted to bring this up to a larger
> > audience in order to solicit additional opinions.
> >
> > HBASE-5206 (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5206), which is
> in
> > 0.94.0 and 0.94.1, breaks compatibility with 0.92.0 and 0.92.1. The
> issue
> > is described in the release notes for HBASE-5155 (of which HBASE-5206 is
> a
> > forward port). Excerpted here:
> >
> > This issue is an incompatible change.
> > If an HBase client with the changes for HBASE-5155 and a server
> (master)
> > without the changes for HBASE-5155 is used, then the is_enabled (from
> HBase
> > Shell) or isTableEnabled() (from HBaseAdmin) will return false though the
> > table is already enabled as per the master.
> >
> > If the HBase client does have the changes for HBASE-5155 and the server
> > does not have the changes for HBASE-5155, then if we try to Enable a
> table
> > then the client will hang.
> >
> > The reason is because,
> > Prior to HBASE-5155 once the table is enabled the znode in the
> zookeeper
> > created for the table is deleted.
> > After HBASE-5155 once the table is enabled the znode in the zookeeper
> > created for the table is not deleted, whereas the same node is updated
> with
> > the status ENABLED.
> >
> > The client also expects the status of the znode in the zookeeper to be
> in
> > the ENABLED state if the table has been enabled successfully.
> > The above changes makes the client behaviour incompatible if the client
> > does not have this fix whereas the server has this fix.
> > If both the client and the server does not have this fix, then the
> > behaviour is as expected.
> >
> > So we have a situation where 0.92.0 and 0.92.1 clients are not compatible
If that is indeed the consensus, please file a jira against 0.94.2.
-- Lars
----- Original Message -----
From: lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 4:24 PM
Subject: Re: 0.92/0.94 compatibility and HBASE-5206
What do you think we should do?
1. Breaking compatibility between minor versions is bad. (i.e. we should fix this in 0.92.2 as currently proposed)
2. At the same time 0.92 might be in wider distribution and that the upgrade path 0.94 might be more important (and include the fix that you propose).
I'm +1 on #1 and +0 on #2.
I agree we need better cross-version integration testing and be generally more diligent about this.
-- Lars
________________________________
From: Gregory Chanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 4:06 PM
Subject: Re: 0.92/0.94 compatibility and HBASE-5206
@Lars:
you are correct that this would break compatibility between {0.94.0,
0.94.1} and 0.94.2.
We clearly need better compatibility testing, these issues are hard to find
by just looking at patches.
Greg
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 4:03 PM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I should also apologize for HBASE-5206 where I didn't maintain
> compatibility in the first place.
>
> We just need to find the solution which minimizes impact of this issue.
>
> Cheers
>
> On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 3:55 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > Won't we then break compatibility between 0.94.0 and 0.94.1 with 0.94.2?
> > I do not have a strong opinion about this.
> >
> > It was my fault that HBASE-5206 slipped into 0.94.0, I apologize for
> that.
> >
> > I was going to spin the first 0.94.2 today. Is the general consensus that
> > I should wait?
> >
> >
> > -- Lars
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Gregory Chanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 3:13 PM
> > Subject: 0.92/0.94 compatibility and HBASE-5206
> >
> > There has been some discussion on the JIRA lately about what to do about
> a
> > 0.92/0.94 compatibility issue. I wanted to bring this up to a larger
> > audience in order to solicit additional opinions.
> >
> > HBASE-5206 (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5206), which is
> in
> > 0.94.0 and 0.94.1, breaks compatibility with 0.92.0 and 0.92.1. The
> issue
> > is described in the release notes for HBASE-5155 (of which HBASE-5206 is
> a
> > forward port). Excerpted here:
> >
> > This issue is an incompatible change.
> > If an HBase client with the changes for HBASE-5155 and a server
> (master)
> > without the changes for HBASE-5155 is used, then the is_enabled (from
> HBase
> > Shell) or isTableEnabled() (from HBaseAdmin) will return false though the
> > table is already enabled as per the master.
> >
> > If the HBase client does have the changes for HBASE-5155 and the server
> > does not have the changes for HBASE-5155, then if we try to Enable a
> table
> > then the client will hang.
> >
> > The reason is because,
> > Prior to HBASE-5155 once the table is enabled the znode in the
> zookeeper
> > created for the table is deleted.
> > After HBASE-5155 once the table is enabled the znode in the zookeeper
> > created for the table is not deleted, whereas the same node is updated
> with
> > the status ENABLED.
> >
> > The client also expects the status of the znode in the zookeeper to be
> in
> > the ENABLED state if the table has been enabled successfully.
> > The above changes makes the client behaviour incompatible if the client
> > does not have this fix whereas the server has this fix.
> > If both the client and the server does not have this fix, then the
> > behaviour is as expected.
> >
> > So we have a situation where 0.92.0 and 0.92.1 clients are not compatible
-
Re: 0.92/0.94 compatibility and HBASE-5206Gregory Chanan 2012-09-01, 00:54
Actually, I think we can make 0.94.2 compatible with both {0.94.0,0.94.1}
and {0.92.0,0.92.1}, although one of those sets will require configuration
changes.
The basic problem is that there is a znode for each table
"zookeeper.znode.tableEnableDisable" that is handled differently.
On 0.92.0 and 0.92.1 the states for this table are:
[ disabled, disabling, enabling ] or deleted if the table is enabled
On 0.94.1 and 0.94.2 the states for this table are:
[ disabled, disabling, enabling, enabled ]
What saves us is that the location of this znode is configurable. So the
basic idea is to have the 0.94.2 master write two different znodes,
"zookeeper.znode.tableEnableDisabled92" and
"zookeeper.znode.tableEnableDisabled94" where the 92 node is in 92 format,
the 94 node is in 94 format. And internally, the master would only use the
94 format in order to solve the original bug HBASE-5155 solves.
We can of course make one of these the same default as exists now, so we
don't need to make config changes for one of 0.92 or 0.94 clients. I argue
that 0.92 clients shouldn't have to make config changes for the same reason
I argued above. But that is debatable.
Then, I think the only question left is Stack's question of how to bring
along the {0.94.0, 0.94.1} crew. A {0.94.0, 0.94.1} client would work
against a 0.94.2 cluster by just
configuring "zookeeper.znode.tableEnableDisable" in the client to be
whatever "zookeeper.znode.tableEnableDisabled94" is in the cluster. A
0.94.2 client would work against both a {0.94.0, 0.94.1} and {0.92.0,
0.92.1} cluster if it had HBASE-6268 applied. About rolling upgrade from
{0.94.0, 0.94.1} to 0.94.2 -- I'd have to think about that. Do the
regionservers ever read the tableEnableDisabled znode?
Greg
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 4:41 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I guess you voiced your opinion in your initial email already (you prefer
> to break compatibility between 0.94.0/0.94.1 with 0.94.2).
> If that is indeed the consensus, please file a jira against 0.94.2.
>
> -- Lars
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc:
> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 4:24 PM
> Subject: Re: 0.92/0.94 compatibility and HBASE-5206
>
> What do you think we should do?
>
> 1. Breaking compatibility between minor versions is bad. (i.e. we should
> fix this in 0.92.2 as currently proposed)
> 2. At the same time 0.92 might be in wider distribution and that the
> upgrade path 0.94 might be more important (and include the fix that you
> propose).
>
> I'm +1 on #1 and +0 on #2.
>
>
> I agree we need better cross-version integration testing and be generally
> more diligent about this.
>
> -- Lars
> ________________________________
> From: Gregory Chanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 4:06 PM
> Subject: Re: 0.92/0.94 compatibility and HBASE-5206
>
> @Lars:
> you are correct that this would break compatibility between {0.94.0,
> 0.94.1} and 0.94.2.
>
> We clearly need better compatibility testing, these issues are hard to find
> by just looking at patches.
>
> Greg
>
> On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 4:03 PM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I should also apologize for HBASE-5206 where I didn't maintain
> > compatibility in the first place.
> >
> > We just need to find the solution which minimizes impact of this issue.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 3:55 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Won't we then break compatibility between 0.94.0 and 0.94.1 with
> 0.94.2?
> > > I do not have a strong opinion about this.
> > >
> > > It was my fault that HBASE-5206 slipped into 0.94.0, I apologize for
> > that.
> > >
> > > I was going to spin the first 0.94.2 today. Is the general consensus
> that
> > > I should wait?
> > >
> > >
> > > -- Lars
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
and {0.92.0,0.92.1}, although one of those sets will require configuration
changes.
The basic problem is that there is a znode for each table
"zookeeper.znode.tableEnableDisable" that is handled differently.
On 0.92.0 and 0.92.1 the states for this table are:
[ disabled, disabling, enabling ] or deleted if the table is enabled
On 0.94.1 and 0.94.2 the states for this table are:
[ disabled, disabling, enabling, enabled ]
What saves us is that the location of this znode is configurable. So the
basic idea is to have the 0.94.2 master write two different znodes,
"zookeeper.znode.tableEnableDisabled92" and
"zookeeper.znode.tableEnableDisabled94" where the 92 node is in 92 format,
the 94 node is in 94 format. And internally, the master would only use the
94 format in order to solve the original bug HBASE-5155 solves.
We can of course make one of these the same default as exists now, so we
don't need to make config changes for one of 0.92 or 0.94 clients. I argue
that 0.92 clients shouldn't have to make config changes for the same reason
I argued above. But that is debatable.
Then, I think the only question left is Stack's question of how to bring
along the {0.94.0, 0.94.1} crew. A {0.94.0, 0.94.1} client would work
against a 0.94.2 cluster by just
configuring "zookeeper.znode.tableEnableDisable" in the client to be
whatever "zookeeper.znode.tableEnableDisabled94" is in the cluster. A
0.94.2 client would work against both a {0.94.0, 0.94.1} and {0.92.0,
0.92.1} cluster if it had HBASE-6268 applied. About rolling upgrade from
{0.94.0, 0.94.1} to 0.94.2 -- I'd have to think about that. Do the
regionservers ever read the tableEnableDisabled znode?
Greg
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 4:41 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I guess you voiced your opinion in your initial email already (you prefer
> to break compatibility between 0.94.0/0.94.1 with 0.94.2).
> If that is indeed the consensus, please file a jira against 0.94.2.
>
> -- Lars
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc:
> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 4:24 PM
> Subject: Re: 0.92/0.94 compatibility and HBASE-5206
>
> What do you think we should do?
>
> 1. Breaking compatibility between minor versions is bad. (i.e. we should
> fix this in 0.92.2 as currently proposed)
> 2. At the same time 0.92 might be in wider distribution and that the
> upgrade path 0.94 might be more important (and include the fix that you
> propose).
>
> I'm +1 on #1 and +0 on #2.
>
>
> I agree we need better cross-version integration testing and be generally
> more diligent about this.
>
> -- Lars
> ________________________________
> From: Gregory Chanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 4:06 PM
> Subject: Re: 0.92/0.94 compatibility and HBASE-5206
>
> @Lars:
> you are correct that this would break compatibility between {0.94.0,
> 0.94.1} and 0.94.2.
>
> We clearly need better compatibility testing, these issues are hard to find
> by just looking at patches.
>
> Greg
>
> On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 4:03 PM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I should also apologize for HBASE-5206 where I didn't maintain
> > compatibility in the first place.
> >
> > We just need to find the solution which minimizes impact of this issue.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 3:55 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Won't we then break compatibility between 0.94.0 and 0.94.1 with
> 0.94.2?
> > > I do not have a strong opinion about this.
> > >
> > > It was my fault that HBASE-5206 slipped into 0.94.0, I apologize for
> > that.
> > >
> > > I was going to spin the first 0.94.2 today. Is the general consensus
> that
> > > I should wait?
> > >
> > >
> > > -- Lars
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
-
Re: 0.92/0.94 compatibility and HBASE-5206Jonathan Hsieh 2012-09-01, 00:55
I am in favor of keeping the 92.0-92.1 client compatible with 94.2/92.2. Greg and I sketched out a scheme that would allow old 92.0-92.1 and 94.0-94.1 clients to be compatible with 92.2/94.2 servers with an xml configuration change.
he'll fill in details.
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 31, 2012, at 16:41, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I guess you voiced your opinion in your initial email already (you prefer to break compatibility between 0.94.0/0.94.1 with 0.94.2).
> If that is indeed the consensus, please file a jira against 0.94.2.
>
> -- Lars
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc:
> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 4:24 PM
> Subject: Re: 0.92/0.94 compatibility and HBASE-5206
>
> What do you think we should do?
>
> 1. Breaking compatibility between minor versions is bad. (i.e. we should fix this in 0.92.2 as currently proposed)
> 2. At the same time 0.92 might be in wider distribution and that the upgrade path 0.94 might be more important (and include the fix that you propose).
>
> I'm +1 on #1 and +0 on #2.
>
>
> I agree we need better cross-version integration testing and be generally more diligent about this.
>
> -- Lars
> ________________________________
> From: Gregory Chanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 4:06 PM
> Subject: Re: 0.92/0.94 compatibility and HBASE-5206
>
> @Lars:
> you are correct that this would break compatibility between {0.94.0,
> 0.94.1} and 0.94.2.
>
> We clearly need better compatibility testing, these issues are hard to find
> by just looking at patches.
>
> Greg
>
> On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 4:03 PM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I should also apologize for HBASE-5206 where I didn't maintain
>> compatibility in the first place.
>>
>> We just need to find the solution which minimizes impact of this issue.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 3:55 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Won't we then break compatibility between 0.94.0 and 0.94.1 with 0.94.2?
>>> I do not have a strong opinion about this.
>>>
>>> It was my fault that HBASE-5206 slipped into 0.94.0, I apologize for
>> that.
>>>
>>> I was going to spin the first 0.94.2 today. Is the general consensus that
>>> I should wait?
>>>
>>>
>>> -- Lars
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: Gregory Chanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 3:13 PM
>>> Subject: 0.92/0.94 compatibility and HBASE-5206
>>>
>>> There has been some discussion on the JIRA lately about what to do about
>> a
>>> 0.92/0.94 compatibility issue. I wanted to bring this up to a larger
>>> audience in order to solicit additional opinions.
>>>
>>> HBASE-5206 (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5206), which is
>> in
>>> 0.94.0 and 0.94.1, breaks compatibility with 0.92.0 and 0.92.1. The
>> issue
>>> is described in the release notes for HBASE-5155 (of which HBASE-5206 is
>> a
>>> forward port). Excerpted here:
>>>
>>> This issue is an incompatible change.
>>> If an HBase client with the changes for HBASE-5155 and a server
>> (master)
>>> without the changes for HBASE-5155 is used, then the is_enabled (from
>> HBase
>>> Shell) or isTableEnabled() (from HBaseAdmin) will return false though the
>>> table is already enabled as per the master.
>>>
>>> If the HBase client does have the changes for HBASE-5155 and the server
>>> does not have the changes for HBASE-5155, then if we try to Enable a
>> table
>>> then the client will hang.
>>>
>>> The reason is because,
>>> Prior to HBASE-5155 once the table is enabled the znode in the
>> zookeeper
>>> created for the table is deleted.
>>> After HBASE-5155 once the table is enabled the znode in the zookeeper
>>> created for the table is not deleted, whereas the same node is updated
he'll fill in details.
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 31, 2012, at 16:41, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I guess you voiced your opinion in your initial email already (you prefer to break compatibility between 0.94.0/0.94.1 with 0.94.2).
> If that is indeed the consensus, please file a jira against 0.94.2.
>
> -- Lars
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc:
> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 4:24 PM
> Subject: Re: 0.92/0.94 compatibility and HBASE-5206
>
> What do you think we should do?
>
> 1. Breaking compatibility between minor versions is bad. (i.e. we should fix this in 0.92.2 as currently proposed)
> 2. At the same time 0.92 might be in wider distribution and that the upgrade path 0.94 might be more important (and include the fix that you propose).
>
> I'm +1 on #1 and +0 on #2.
>
>
> I agree we need better cross-version integration testing and be generally more diligent about this.
>
> -- Lars
> ________________________________
> From: Gregory Chanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 4:06 PM
> Subject: Re: 0.92/0.94 compatibility and HBASE-5206
>
> @Lars:
> you are correct that this would break compatibility between {0.94.0,
> 0.94.1} and 0.94.2.
>
> We clearly need better compatibility testing, these issues are hard to find
> by just looking at patches.
>
> Greg
>
> On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 4:03 PM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I should also apologize for HBASE-5206 where I didn't maintain
>> compatibility in the first place.
>>
>> We just need to find the solution which minimizes impact of this issue.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 3:55 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Won't we then break compatibility between 0.94.0 and 0.94.1 with 0.94.2?
>>> I do not have a strong opinion about this.
>>>
>>> It was my fault that HBASE-5206 slipped into 0.94.0, I apologize for
>> that.
>>>
>>> I was going to spin the first 0.94.2 today. Is the general consensus that
>>> I should wait?
>>>
>>>
>>> -- Lars
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: Gregory Chanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 3:13 PM
>>> Subject: 0.92/0.94 compatibility and HBASE-5206
>>>
>>> There has been some discussion on the JIRA lately about what to do about
>> a
>>> 0.92/0.94 compatibility issue. I wanted to bring this up to a larger
>>> audience in order to solicit additional opinions.
>>>
>>> HBASE-5206 (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5206), which is
>> in
>>> 0.94.0 and 0.94.1, breaks compatibility with 0.92.0 and 0.92.1. The
>> issue
>>> is described in the release notes for HBASE-5155 (of which HBASE-5206 is
>> a
>>> forward port). Excerpted here:
>>>
>>> This issue is an incompatible change.
>>> If an HBase client with the changes for HBASE-5155 and a server
>> (master)
>>> without the changes for HBASE-5155 is used, then the is_enabled (from
>> HBase
>>> Shell) or isTableEnabled() (from HBaseAdmin) will return false though the
>>> table is already enabled as per the master.
>>>
>>> If the HBase client does have the changes for HBASE-5155 and the server
>>> does not have the changes for HBASE-5155, then if we try to Enable a
>> table
>>> then the client will hang.
>>>
>>> The reason is because,
>>> Prior to HBASE-5155 once the table is enabled the znode in the
>> zookeeper
>>> created for the table is deleted.
>>> After HBASE-5155 once the table is enabled the znode in the zookeeper
>>> created for the table is not deleted, whereas the same node is updated
-
Re: 0.92/0.94 compatibility and HBASE-5206lars hofhansl 2012-09-01, 01:34
Sounds complicated. But since you are the folks with customers that'll upgrade to from 0.92 to 0.94, let's do this.
The only input I'd have is that format we'll use going forward will not have a version attached to it.
So maybe the 92 version would still be called "zookeeper.znode.tableEnableDisable" and the new node could have a different name "zookeeper.znode.tableEnableDisableNew" (or something).
-- Lars
________________________________
From: Gregory Chanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 5:54 PM
Subject: Re: 0.92/0.94 compatibility and HBASE-5206
Actually, I think we can make 0.94.2 compatible with both {0.94.0,0.94.1} and {0.92.0,0.92.1}, although one of those sets will require configuration changes.
The basic problem is that there is a znode for each table "zookeeper.znode.tableEnableDisable" that is handled differently.
On 0.92.0 and 0.92.1 the states for this table are:
[ disabled, disabling, enabling ] or deleted if the table is enabled
On 0.94.1 and 0.94.2 the states for this table are:
[ disabled, disabling, enabling, enabled ]
What saves us is that the location of this znode is configurable. So the basic idea is to have the 0.94.2 master write two different znodes, "zookeeper.znode.tableEnableDisabled92" and "zookeeper.znode.tableEnableDisabled94" where the 92 node is in 92 format, the 94 node is in 94 format. And internally, the master would only use the 94 format in order to solve the original bug HBASE-5155 solves.
We can of course make one of these the same default as exists now, so we don't need to make config changes for one of 0.92 or 0.94 clients. I argue that 0.92 clients shouldn't have to make config changes for the same reason I argued above. But that is debatable.
Then, I think the only question left is Stack's question of how to bring along the {0.94.0, 0.94.1} crew. A {0.94.0, 0.94.1} client would work against a 0.94.2 cluster by just configuring "zookeeper.znode.tableEnableDisable" in the client to be whatever "zookeeper.znode.tableEnableDisabled94" is in the cluster. A 0.94.2 client would work against both a {0.94.0, 0.94.1} and {0.92.0, 0.92.1} cluster if it had HBASE-6268 applied. About rolling upgrade from {0.94.0, 0.94.1} to 0.94.2 -- I'd have to think about that. Do the regionservers ever read the tableEnableDisabled znode?
Greg
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 4:41 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I guess you voiced your opinion in your initial email already (you prefer to break compatibility between 0.94.0/0.94.1 with 0.94.2).
>If that is indeed the consensus, please file a jira against 0.94.2.
>
>-- Lars
>
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Cc:
>Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 4:24 PM
>Subject: Re: 0.92/0.94 compatibility and HBASE-5206
>
>What do you think we should do?
>
>1. Breaking compatibility between minor versions is bad. (i.e. we should fix this in 0.92.2 as currently proposed)
>2. At the same time 0.92 might be in wider distribution and that the upgrade path 0.94 might be more important (and include the fix that you propose).
>
>I'm +1 on #1 and +0 on #2.
>
>
>I agree we need better cross-version integration testing and be generally more diligent about this.
>
>-- Lars
>________________________________
>From: Gregory Chanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Cc: lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 4:06 PM
>Subject: Re: 0.92/0.94 compatibility and HBASE-5206
>
>@Lars:
>you are correct that this would break compatibility between {0.94.0,
>0.94.1} and 0.94.2.
>
>We clearly need better compatibility testing, these issues are hard to find
>by just looking at patches.
>
>Greg
>
>On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 4:03 PM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I should also apologize for HBASE-5206 where I didn't maintain
>> compatibility in the first place.
The only input I'd have is that format we'll use going forward will not have a version attached to it.
So maybe the 92 version would still be called "zookeeper.znode.tableEnableDisable" and the new node could have a different name "zookeeper.znode.tableEnableDisableNew" (or something).
-- Lars
________________________________
From: Gregory Chanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 5:54 PM
Subject: Re: 0.92/0.94 compatibility and HBASE-5206
Actually, I think we can make 0.94.2 compatible with both {0.94.0,0.94.1} and {0.92.0,0.92.1}, although one of those sets will require configuration changes.
The basic problem is that there is a znode for each table "zookeeper.znode.tableEnableDisable" that is handled differently.
On 0.92.0 and 0.92.1 the states for this table are:
[ disabled, disabling, enabling ] or deleted if the table is enabled
On 0.94.1 and 0.94.2 the states for this table are:
[ disabled, disabling, enabling, enabled ]
What saves us is that the location of this znode is configurable. So the basic idea is to have the 0.94.2 master write two different znodes, "zookeeper.znode.tableEnableDisabled92" and "zookeeper.znode.tableEnableDisabled94" where the 92 node is in 92 format, the 94 node is in 94 format. And internally, the master would only use the 94 format in order to solve the original bug HBASE-5155 solves.
We can of course make one of these the same default as exists now, so we don't need to make config changes for one of 0.92 or 0.94 clients. I argue that 0.92 clients shouldn't have to make config changes for the same reason I argued above. But that is debatable.
Then, I think the only question left is Stack's question of how to bring along the {0.94.0, 0.94.1} crew. A {0.94.0, 0.94.1} client would work against a 0.94.2 cluster by just configuring "zookeeper.znode.tableEnableDisable" in the client to be whatever "zookeeper.znode.tableEnableDisabled94" is in the cluster. A 0.94.2 client would work against both a {0.94.0, 0.94.1} and {0.92.0, 0.92.1} cluster if it had HBASE-6268 applied. About rolling upgrade from {0.94.0, 0.94.1} to 0.94.2 -- I'd have to think about that. Do the regionservers ever read the tableEnableDisabled znode?
Greg
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 4:41 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I guess you voiced your opinion in your initial email already (you prefer to break compatibility between 0.94.0/0.94.1 with 0.94.2).
>If that is indeed the consensus, please file a jira against 0.94.2.
>
>-- Lars
>
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Cc:
>Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 4:24 PM
>Subject: Re: 0.92/0.94 compatibility and HBASE-5206
>
>What do you think we should do?
>
>1. Breaking compatibility between minor versions is bad. (i.e. we should fix this in 0.92.2 as currently proposed)
>2. At the same time 0.92 might be in wider distribution and that the upgrade path 0.94 might be more important (and include the fix that you propose).
>
>I'm +1 on #1 and +0 on #2.
>
>
>I agree we need better cross-version integration testing and be generally more diligent about this.
>
>-- Lars
>________________________________
>From: Gregory Chanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Cc: lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 4:06 PM
>Subject: Re: 0.92/0.94 compatibility and HBASE-5206
>
>@Lars:
>you are correct that this would break compatibility between {0.94.0,
>0.94.1} and 0.94.2.
>
>We clearly need better compatibility testing, these issues are hard to find
>by just looking at patches.
>
>Greg
>
>On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 4:03 PM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I should also apologize for HBASE-5206 where I didn't maintain
>> compatibility in the first place.
-
Re: 0.92/0.94 compatibility and HBASE-5206lars hofhansl 2012-09-01, 02:02
Also, if understand this correctly this would not help if somebody had deployed an 0.94.0 or 0.94.1 cluster and want to upgrade the client and server out of sync.
In one configuration the client would work against 0.94.0 and 0.94.1 but not against 0.94.2. In the other configuration the client would work against 0.94.2 but not against 0.94.0 or 0.94.1.
There is however and clean upgrade path to 0.92.2 and from there to 0.94.2 if we just fix this in 0.92.2.
-- Lars
________________________________
From: lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Gregory Chanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 6:34 PM
Subject: Re: 0.92/0.94 compatibility and HBASE-5206
Sounds complicated. But since you are the folks with customers that'll upgrade to from 0.92 to 0.94, let's do this.
The only input I'd have is that format we'll use going forward will not have a version attached to it.
So maybe the 92 version would still be called "zookeeper.znode.tableEnableDisable" and the new node could have a different name "zookeeper.znode.tableEnableDisableNew" (or something).
-- Lars
________________________________
From: Gregory Chanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 5:54 PM
Subject: Re: 0.92/0.94 compatibility and HBASE-5206
Actually, I think we can make 0.94.2 compatible with both {0.94.0,0.94.1} and {0.92.0,0.92.1}, although one of those sets will require configuration changes.
The basic problem is that there is a znode for each table "zookeeper.znode.tableEnableDisable" that is handled differently.
On 0.92.0 and 0.92.1 the states for this table are:
[ disabled, disabling, enabling ] or deleted if the table is enabled
On 0.94.1 and 0.94.2 the states for this table are:
[ disabled, disabling, enabling, enabled ]
What saves us is that the location of this znode is configurable. So the basic idea is to have the 0.94.2 master write two different znodes, "zookeeper.znode.tableEnableDisabled92" and "zookeeper.znode.tableEnableDisabled94" where the 92 node is in 92 format, the 94 node is in 94 format. And internally, the master would only use the 94 format in order to solve the original bug HBASE-5155 solves.
We can of course make one of these the same default as exists now, so we don't need to make config changes for one of 0.92 or 0.94 clients. I argue that 0.92 clients shouldn't have to make config changes for the same reason I argued above. But that is debatable.
Then, I think the only question left is Stack's question of how to bring along the {0.94.0, 0.94.1} crew. A {0.94.0, 0.94.1} client would work against a 0.94.2 cluster by just configuring "zookeeper.znode.tableEnableDisable" in the client to be whatever "zookeeper.znode.tableEnableDisabled94" is in the cluster. A 0.94.2 client would work against both a {0.94.0, 0.94.1} and {0.92.0, 0.92.1} cluster if it had HBASE-6268 applied. About rolling upgrade from {0.94.0, 0.94.1} to 0.94.2 -- I'd have to think about that. Do the regionservers ever read the tableEnableDisabled znode?
Greg
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 4:41 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I guess you voiced your opinion in your initial email already (you prefer to break compatibility between 0.94.0/0.94.1 with 0.94.2).
>If that is indeed the consensus, please file a jira against 0.94.2.
>
>-- Lars
>
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Cc:
>Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 4:24 PM
>Subject: Re: 0.92/0.94 compatibility and HBASE-5206
>
>What do you think we should do?
>
>1. Breaking compatibility between minor versions is bad. (i.e. we should fix this in 0.92.2 as currently proposed)
>2. At the same time 0.92 might be in wider distribution and that the upgrade path 0.94 might be more important (and include the fix that you propose).
>
>I'm +1 on #1 and +0 on #2.
>
>
In one configuration the client would work against 0.94.0 and 0.94.1 but not against 0.94.2. In the other configuration the client would work against 0.94.2 but not against 0.94.0 or 0.94.1.
There is however and clean upgrade path to 0.92.2 and from there to 0.94.2 if we just fix this in 0.92.2.
-- Lars
________________________________
From: lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Gregory Chanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 6:34 PM
Subject: Re: 0.92/0.94 compatibility and HBASE-5206
Sounds complicated. But since you are the folks with customers that'll upgrade to from 0.92 to 0.94, let's do this.
The only input I'd have is that format we'll use going forward will not have a version attached to it.
So maybe the 92 version would still be called "zookeeper.znode.tableEnableDisable" and the new node could have a different name "zookeeper.znode.tableEnableDisableNew" (or something).
-- Lars
________________________________
From: Gregory Chanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 5:54 PM
Subject: Re: 0.92/0.94 compatibility and HBASE-5206
Actually, I think we can make 0.94.2 compatible with both {0.94.0,0.94.1} and {0.92.0,0.92.1}, although one of those sets will require configuration changes.
The basic problem is that there is a znode for each table "zookeeper.znode.tableEnableDisable" that is handled differently.
On 0.92.0 and 0.92.1 the states for this table are:
[ disabled, disabling, enabling ] or deleted if the table is enabled
On 0.94.1 and 0.94.2 the states for this table are:
[ disabled, disabling, enabling, enabled ]
What saves us is that the location of this znode is configurable. So the basic idea is to have the 0.94.2 master write two different znodes, "zookeeper.znode.tableEnableDisabled92" and "zookeeper.znode.tableEnableDisabled94" where the 92 node is in 92 format, the 94 node is in 94 format. And internally, the master would only use the 94 format in order to solve the original bug HBASE-5155 solves.
We can of course make one of these the same default as exists now, so we don't need to make config changes for one of 0.92 or 0.94 clients. I argue that 0.92 clients shouldn't have to make config changes for the same reason I argued above. But that is debatable.
Then, I think the only question left is Stack's question of how to bring along the {0.94.0, 0.94.1} crew. A {0.94.0, 0.94.1} client would work against a 0.94.2 cluster by just configuring "zookeeper.znode.tableEnableDisable" in the client to be whatever "zookeeper.znode.tableEnableDisabled94" is in the cluster. A 0.94.2 client would work against both a {0.94.0, 0.94.1} and {0.92.0, 0.92.1} cluster if it had HBASE-6268 applied. About rolling upgrade from {0.94.0, 0.94.1} to 0.94.2 -- I'd have to think about that. Do the regionservers ever read the tableEnableDisabled znode?
Greg
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 4:41 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I guess you voiced your opinion in your initial email already (you prefer to break compatibility between 0.94.0/0.94.1 with 0.94.2).
>If that is indeed the consensus, please file a jira against 0.94.2.
>
>-- Lars
>
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Cc:
>Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 4:24 PM
>Subject: Re: 0.92/0.94 compatibility and HBASE-5206
>
>What do you think we should do?
>
>1. Breaking compatibility between minor versions is bad. (i.e. we should fix this in 0.92.2 as currently proposed)
>2. At the same time 0.92 might be in wider distribution and that the upgrade path 0.94 might be more important (and include the fix that you propose).
>
>I'm +1 on #1 and +0 on #2.
>
>
-
Re: 0.92/0.94 compatibility and HBASE-5206Gregory Chanan 2012-09-01, 02:42
@Lars: agreed on your point of leaving the name for the 92 znode the same.
On upgrading a 0.94.0 or 0.94.1 cluster out of sync, I think it would work.
The 0.94.2 client should work against all 0.94.2, 0.94.1, and 0.94.0
versions (and all 0.92.x versions as well). We just need to apply
HBASE-6268 to 0.94.2. So you would first upgrade the client, then the
server(s). The reason this works is because the client, with HBASE-6268
applied, can handle the znode being in either the 0.92 or 0.94 format, it
doesn't need to know which is which. I'll of course test all this :).
Greg
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 7:02 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Also, if understand this correctly this would not help if somebody had
> deployed an 0.94.0 or 0.94.1 cluster and want to upgrade the client and
> server out of sync.
> In one configuration the client would work against 0.94.0 and 0.94.1 but
> not against 0.94.2. In the other configuration the client would work
> against 0.94.2 but not against 0.94.0 or 0.94.1.
>
>
> There is however and clean upgrade path to 0.92.2 and from there to 0.94.2
> if we just fix this in 0.92.2.
>
>
> -- Lars
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Gregory Chanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 6:34 PM
> Subject: Re: 0.92/0.94 compatibility and HBASE-5206
>
> Sounds complicated. But since you are the folks with customers that'll
> upgrade to from 0.92 to 0.94, let's do this.
>
> The only input I'd have is that format we'll use going forward will not
> have a version attached to it.
>
> So maybe the 92 version would still be called
> "zookeeper.znode.tableEnableDisable" and the new node could have a
> different name "zookeeper.znode.tableEnableDisableNew" (or something).
>
> -- Lars
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Gregory Chanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 5:54 PM
> Subject: Re: 0.92/0.94 compatibility and HBASE-5206
>
>
> Actually, I think we can make 0.94.2 compatible with both {0.94.0,0.94.1}
> and {0.92.0,0.92.1}, although one of those sets will require configuration
> changes.
>
> The basic problem is that there is a znode for each table
> "zookeeper.znode.tableEnableDisable" that is handled differently.
>
> On 0.92.0 and 0.92.1 the states for this table are:
> [ disabled, disabling, enabling ] or deleted if the table is enabled
>
> On 0.94.1 and 0.94.2 the states for this table are:
> [ disabled, disabling, enabling, enabled ]
>
> What saves us is that the location of this znode is configurable. So the
> basic idea is to have the 0.94.2 master write two different znodes,
> "zookeeper.znode.tableEnableDisabled92" and
> "zookeeper.znode.tableEnableDisabled94" where the 92 node is in 92 format,
> the 94 node is in 94 format. And internally, the master would only use the
> 94 format in order to solve the original bug HBASE-5155 solves.
> We can of course make one of these the same default as exists now, so we
> don't need to make config changes for one of 0.92 or 0.94 clients. I argue
> that 0.92 clients shouldn't have to make config changes for the same reason
> I argued above. But that is debatable.
>
> Then, I think the only question left is Stack's question of how to bring
> along the {0.94.0, 0.94.1} crew. A {0.94.0, 0.94.1} client would work
> against a 0.94.2 cluster by just
> configuring "zookeeper.znode.tableEnableDisable" in the client to be
> whatever "zookeeper.znode.tableEnableDisabled94" is in the cluster. A
> 0.94.2 client would work against both a {0.94.0, 0.94.1} and {0.92.0,
> 0.92.1} cluster if it had HBASE-6268 applied. About rolling upgrade from
> {0.94.0, 0.94.1} to 0.94.2 -- I'd have to think about that. Do the
> regionservers ever read the tableEnableDisabled znode?
>
> Greg
>
> On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 4:41 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On upgrading a 0.94.0 or 0.94.1 cluster out of sync, I think it would work.
The 0.94.2 client should work against all 0.94.2, 0.94.1, and 0.94.0
versions (and all 0.92.x versions as well). We just need to apply
HBASE-6268 to 0.94.2. So you would first upgrade the client, then the
server(s). The reason this works is because the client, with HBASE-6268
applied, can handle the znode being in either the 0.92 or 0.94 format, it
doesn't need to know which is which. I'll of course test all this :).
Greg
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 7:02 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Also, if understand this correctly this would not help if somebody had
> deployed an 0.94.0 or 0.94.1 cluster and want to upgrade the client and
> server out of sync.
> In one configuration the client would work against 0.94.0 and 0.94.1 but
> not against 0.94.2. In the other configuration the client would work
> against 0.94.2 but not against 0.94.0 or 0.94.1.
>
>
> There is however and clean upgrade path to 0.92.2 and from there to 0.94.2
> if we just fix this in 0.92.2.
>
>
> -- Lars
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Gregory Chanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 6:34 PM
> Subject: Re: 0.92/0.94 compatibility and HBASE-5206
>
> Sounds complicated. But since you are the folks with customers that'll
> upgrade to from 0.92 to 0.94, let's do this.
>
> The only input I'd have is that format we'll use going forward will not
> have a version attached to it.
>
> So maybe the 92 version would still be called
> "zookeeper.znode.tableEnableDisable" and the new node could have a
> different name "zookeeper.znode.tableEnableDisableNew" (or something).
>
> -- Lars
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Gregory Chanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 5:54 PM
> Subject: Re: 0.92/0.94 compatibility and HBASE-5206
>
>
> Actually, I think we can make 0.94.2 compatible with both {0.94.0,0.94.1}
> and {0.92.0,0.92.1}, although one of those sets will require configuration
> changes.
>
> The basic problem is that there is a znode for each table
> "zookeeper.znode.tableEnableDisable" that is handled differently.
>
> On 0.92.0 and 0.92.1 the states for this table are:
> [ disabled, disabling, enabling ] or deleted if the table is enabled
>
> On 0.94.1 and 0.94.2 the states for this table are:
> [ disabled, disabling, enabling, enabled ]
>
> What saves us is that the location of this znode is configurable. So the
> basic idea is to have the 0.94.2 master write two different znodes,
> "zookeeper.znode.tableEnableDisabled92" and
> "zookeeper.znode.tableEnableDisabled94" where the 92 node is in 92 format,
> the 94 node is in 94 format. And internally, the master would only use the
> 94 format in order to solve the original bug HBASE-5155 solves.
> We can of course make one of these the same default as exists now, so we
> don't need to make config changes for one of 0.92 or 0.94 clients. I argue
> that 0.92 clients shouldn't have to make config changes for the same reason
> I argued above. But that is debatable.
>
> Then, I think the only question left is Stack's question of how to bring
> along the {0.94.0, 0.94.1} crew. A {0.94.0, 0.94.1} client would work
> against a 0.94.2 cluster by just
> configuring "zookeeper.znode.tableEnableDisable" in the client to be
> whatever "zookeeper.znode.tableEnableDisabled94" is in the cluster. A
> 0.94.2 client would work against both a {0.94.0, 0.94.1} and {0.92.0,
> 0.92.1} cluster if it had HBASE-6268 applied. About rolling upgrade from
> {0.94.0, 0.94.1} to 0.94.2 -- I'd have to think about that. Do the
> regionservers ever read the tableEnableDisabled znode?
>
> Greg
>
> On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 4:41 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-
Re: 0.92/0.94 compatibility and HBASE-5206lars hofhansl 2012-09-01, 03:21
I see. Makes sense. I made a trivial 0.94 patch for HBASE-6268.
Can you file a jira for the other changes you describe below?
-- Lars
________________________________
From: Gregory Chanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 7:42 PM
Subject: Re: 0.92/0.94 compatibility and HBASE-5206
@Lars: agreed on your point of leaving the name for the 92 znode the same.
On upgrading a 0.94.0 or 0.94.1 cluster out of sync, I think it would work.
The 0.94.2 client should work against all 0.94.2, 0.94.1, and 0.94.0
versions (and all 0.92.x versions as well). We just need to apply
HBASE-6268 to 0.94.2. So you would first upgrade the client, then the
server(s). The reason this works is because the client, with HBASE-6268
applied, can handle the znode being in either the 0.92 or 0.94 format, it
doesn't need to know which is which. I'll of course test all this :).
Greg
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 7:02 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Also, if understand this correctly this would not help if somebody had
> deployed an 0.94.0 or 0.94.1 cluster and want to upgrade the client and
> server out of sync.
> In one configuration the client would work against 0.94.0 and 0.94.1 but
> not against 0.94.2. In the other configuration the client would work
> against 0.94.2 but not against 0.94.0 or 0.94.1.
>
>
> There is however and clean upgrade path to 0.92.2 and from there to 0.94.2
> if we just fix this in 0.92.2.
>
>
> -- Lars
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Gregory Chanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 6:34 PM
> Subject: Re: 0.92/0.94 compatibility and HBASE-5206
>
> Sounds complicated. But since you are the folks with customers that'll
> upgrade to from 0.92 to 0.94, let's do this.
>
> The only input I'd have is that format we'll use going forward will not
> have a version attached to it.
>
> So maybe the 92 version would still be called
> "zookeeper.znode.tableEnableDisable" and the new node could have a
> different name "zookeeper.znode.tableEnableDisableNew" (or something).
>
> -- Lars
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Gregory Chanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 5:54 PM
> Subject: Re: 0.92/0.94 compatibility and HBASE-5206
>
>
> Actually, I think we can make 0.94.2 compatible with both {0.94.0,0.94.1}
> and {0.92.0,0.92.1}, although one of those sets will require configuration
> changes.
>
> The basic problem is that there is a znode for each table
> "zookeeper.znode.tableEnableDisable" that is handled differently.
>
> On 0.92.0 and 0.92.1 the states for this table are:
> [ disabled, disabling, enabling ] or deleted if the table is enabled
>
> On 0.94.1 and 0.94.2 the states for this table are:
> [ disabled, disabling, enabling, enabled ]
>
> What saves us is that the location of this znode is configurable. So the
> basic idea is to have the 0.94.2 master write two different znodes,
> "zookeeper.znode.tableEnableDisabled92" and
> "zookeeper.znode.tableEnableDisabled94" where the 92 node is in 92 format,
> the 94 node is in 94 format. And internally, the master would only use the
> 94 format in order to solve the original bug HBASE-5155 solves.
> We can of course make one of these the same default as exists now, so we
> don't need to make config changes for one of 0.92 or 0.94 clients. I argue
> that 0.92 clients shouldn't have to make config changes for the same reason
> I argued above. But that is debatable.
>
> Then, I think the only question left is Stack's question of how to bring
> along the {0.94.0, 0.94.1} crew. A {0.94.0, 0.94.1} client would work
> against a 0.94.2 cluster by just
> configuring "zookeeper.znode.tableEnableDisable" in the client to be
> whatever "zookeeper.znode.tableEnableDisabled94" is in the cluster. A
Can you file a jira for the other changes you describe below?
-- Lars
________________________________
From: Gregory Chanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 7:42 PM
Subject: Re: 0.92/0.94 compatibility and HBASE-5206
@Lars: agreed on your point of leaving the name for the 92 znode the same.
On upgrading a 0.94.0 or 0.94.1 cluster out of sync, I think it would work.
The 0.94.2 client should work against all 0.94.2, 0.94.1, and 0.94.0
versions (and all 0.92.x versions as well). We just need to apply
HBASE-6268 to 0.94.2. So you would first upgrade the client, then the
server(s). The reason this works is because the client, with HBASE-6268
applied, can handle the znode being in either the 0.92 or 0.94 format, it
doesn't need to know which is which. I'll of course test all this :).
Greg
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 7:02 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Also, if understand this correctly this would not help if somebody had
> deployed an 0.94.0 or 0.94.1 cluster and want to upgrade the client and
> server out of sync.
> In one configuration the client would work against 0.94.0 and 0.94.1 but
> not against 0.94.2. In the other configuration the client would work
> against 0.94.2 but not against 0.94.0 or 0.94.1.
>
>
> There is however and clean upgrade path to 0.92.2 and from there to 0.94.2
> if we just fix this in 0.92.2.
>
>
> -- Lars
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Gregory Chanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 6:34 PM
> Subject: Re: 0.92/0.94 compatibility and HBASE-5206
>
> Sounds complicated. But since you are the folks with customers that'll
> upgrade to from 0.92 to 0.94, let's do this.
>
> The only input I'd have is that format we'll use going forward will not
> have a version attached to it.
>
> So maybe the 92 version would still be called
> "zookeeper.znode.tableEnableDisable" and the new node could have a
> different name "zookeeper.znode.tableEnableDisableNew" (or something).
>
> -- Lars
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Gregory Chanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 5:54 PM
> Subject: Re: 0.92/0.94 compatibility and HBASE-5206
>
>
> Actually, I think we can make 0.94.2 compatible with both {0.94.0,0.94.1}
> and {0.92.0,0.92.1}, although one of those sets will require configuration
> changes.
>
> The basic problem is that there is a znode for each table
> "zookeeper.znode.tableEnableDisable" that is handled differently.
>
> On 0.92.0 and 0.92.1 the states for this table are:
> [ disabled, disabling, enabling ] or deleted if the table is enabled
>
> On 0.94.1 and 0.94.2 the states for this table are:
> [ disabled, disabling, enabling, enabled ]
>
> What saves us is that the location of this znode is configurable. So the
> basic idea is to have the 0.94.2 master write two different znodes,
> "zookeeper.znode.tableEnableDisabled92" and
> "zookeeper.znode.tableEnableDisabled94" where the 92 node is in 92 format,
> the 94 node is in 94 format. And internally, the master would only use the
> 94 format in order to solve the original bug HBASE-5155 solves.
> We can of course make one of these the same default as exists now, so we
> don't need to make config changes for one of 0.92 or 0.94 clients. I argue
> that 0.92 clients shouldn't have to make config changes for the same reason
> I argued above. But that is debatable.
>
> Then, I think the only question left is Stack's question of how to bring
> along the {0.94.0, 0.94.1} crew. A {0.94.0, 0.94.1} client would work
> against a 0.94.2 cluster by just
> configuring "zookeeper.znode.tableEnableDisable" in the client to be
> whatever "zookeeper.znode.tableEnableDisabled94" is in the cluster. A
-
Re: 0.92/0.94 compatibility and HBASE-5206Gregory Chanan 2012-09-01, 04:29
I filed HBASE-6710.
Greg
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 8:21 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I see. Makes sense. I made a trivial 0.94 patch for HBASE-6268.
> Can you file a jira for the other changes you describe below?
>
> -- Lars
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Gregory Chanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 7:42 PM
> Subject: Re: 0.92/0.94 compatibility and HBASE-5206
>
> @Lars: agreed on your point of leaving the name for the 92 znode the same.
>
> On upgrading a 0.94.0 or 0.94.1 cluster out of sync, I think it would work.
> The 0.94.2 client should work against all 0.94.2, 0.94.1, and 0.94.0
> versions (and all 0.92.x versions as well). We just need to apply
> HBASE-6268 to 0.94.2. So you would first upgrade the client, then the
> server(s). The reason this works is because the client, with HBASE-6268
> applied, can handle the znode being in either the 0.92 or 0.94 format, it
> doesn't need to know which is which. I'll of course test all this :).
>
> Greg
>
> On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 7:02 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > Also, if understand this correctly this would not help if somebody had
> > deployed an 0.94.0 or 0.94.1 cluster and want to upgrade the client and
> > server out of sync.
> > In one configuration the client would work against 0.94.0 and 0.94.1 but
> > not against 0.94.2. In the other configuration the client would work
> > against 0.94.2 but not against 0.94.0 or 0.94.1.
> >
> >
> > There is however and clean upgrade path to 0.92.2 and from there to
> 0.94.2
> > if we just fix this in 0.92.2.
> >
> >
> > -- Lars
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: Gregory Chanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 6:34 PM
> > Subject: Re: 0.92/0.94 compatibility and HBASE-5206
> >
> > Sounds complicated. But since you are the folks with customers that'll
> > upgrade to from 0.92 to 0.94, let's do this.
> >
> > The only input I'd have is that format we'll use going forward will not
> > have a version attached to it.
> >
> > So maybe the 92 version would still be called
> > "zookeeper.znode.tableEnableDisable" and the new node could have a
> > different name "zookeeper.znode.tableEnableDisableNew" (or something).
> >
> > -- Lars
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Gregory Chanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 5:54 PM
> > Subject: Re: 0.92/0.94 compatibility and HBASE-5206
> >
> >
> > Actually, I think we can make 0.94.2 compatible with both {0.94.0,0.94.1}
> > and {0.92.0,0.92.1}, although one of those sets will require
> configuration
> > changes.
> >
> > The basic problem is that there is a znode for each table
> > "zookeeper.znode.tableEnableDisable" that is handled differently.
> >
> > On 0.92.0 and 0.92.1 the states for this table are:
> > [ disabled, disabling, enabling ] or deleted if the table is enabled
> >
> > On 0.94.1 and 0.94.2 the states for this table are:
> > [ disabled, disabling, enabling, enabled ]
> >
> > What saves us is that the location of this znode is configurable. So the
> > basic idea is to have the 0.94.2 master write two different znodes,
> > "zookeeper.znode.tableEnableDisabled92" and
> > "zookeeper.znode.tableEnableDisabled94" where the 92 node is in 92
> format,
> > the 94 node is in 94 format. And internally, the master would only use
> the
> > 94 format in order to solve the original bug HBASE-5155 solves.
> > We can of course make one of these the same default as exists now, so we
> > don't need to make config changes for one of 0.92 or 0.94 clients. I
> argue
> > that 0.92 clients shouldn't have to make config changes for the same
> reason
> > I argued above. But that is debatable.
> >
> > Then, I think the only question left is Stack's question of how to bring
Greg
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 8:21 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I see. Makes sense. I made a trivial 0.94 patch for HBASE-6268.
> Can you file a jira for the other changes you describe below?
>
> -- Lars
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Gregory Chanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 7:42 PM
> Subject: Re: 0.92/0.94 compatibility and HBASE-5206
>
> @Lars: agreed on your point of leaving the name for the 92 znode the same.
>
> On upgrading a 0.94.0 or 0.94.1 cluster out of sync, I think it would work.
> The 0.94.2 client should work against all 0.94.2, 0.94.1, and 0.94.0
> versions (and all 0.92.x versions as well). We just need to apply
> HBASE-6268 to 0.94.2. So you would first upgrade the client, then the
> server(s). The reason this works is because the client, with HBASE-6268
> applied, can handle the znode being in either the 0.92 or 0.94 format, it
> doesn't need to know which is which. I'll of course test all this :).
>
> Greg
>
> On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 7:02 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > Also, if understand this correctly this would not help if somebody had
> > deployed an 0.94.0 or 0.94.1 cluster and want to upgrade the client and
> > server out of sync.
> > In one configuration the client would work against 0.94.0 and 0.94.1 but
> > not against 0.94.2. In the other configuration the client would work
> > against 0.94.2 but not against 0.94.0 or 0.94.1.
> >
> >
> > There is however and clean upgrade path to 0.92.2 and from there to
> 0.94.2
> > if we just fix this in 0.92.2.
> >
> >
> > -- Lars
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: Gregory Chanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 6:34 PM
> > Subject: Re: 0.92/0.94 compatibility and HBASE-5206
> >
> > Sounds complicated. But since you are the folks with customers that'll
> > upgrade to from 0.92 to 0.94, let's do this.
> >
> > The only input I'd have is that format we'll use going forward will not
> > have a version attached to it.
> >
> > So maybe the 92 version would still be called
> > "zookeeper.znode.tableEnableDisable" and the new node could have a
> > different name "zookeeper.znode.tableEnableDisableNew" (or something).
> >
> > -- Lars
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Gregory Chanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 5:54 PM
> > Subject: Re: 0.92/0.94 compatibility and HBASE-5206
> >
> >
> > Actually, I think we can make 0.94.2 compatible with both {0.94.0,0.94.1}
> > and {0.92.0,0.92.1}, although one of those sets will require
> configuration
> > changes.
> >
> > The basic problem is that there is a znode for each table
> > "zookeeper.znode.tableEnableDisable" that is handled differently.
> >
> > On 0.92.0 and 0.92.1 the states for this table are:
> > [ disabled, disabling, enabling ] or deleted if the table is enabled
> >
> > On 0.94.1 and 0.94.2 the states for this table are:
> > [ disabled, disabling, enabling, enabled ]
> >
> > What saves us is that the location of this znode is configurable. So the
> > basic idea is to have the 0.94.2 master write two different znodes,
> > "zookeeper.znode.tableEnableDisabled92" and
> > "zookeeper.znode.tableEnableDisabled94" where the 92 node is in 92
> format,
> > the 94 node is in 94 format. And internally, the master would only use
> the
> > 94 format in order to solve the original bug HBASE-5155 solves.
> > We can of course make one of these the same default as exists now, so we
> > don't need to make config changes for one of 0.92 or 0.94 clients. I
> argue
> > that 0.92 clients shouldn't have to make config changes for the same
> reason
> > I argued above. But that is debatable.
> >
> > Then, I think the only question left is Stack's question of how to bring
-
RE: 0.92/0.94 compatibility and HBASE-5206Ramkrishna.S.Vasudevan 2012-09-03, 04:44
Hi
First time this issue was reported, I felt bad because HBASE-5155 was
introduced by me. I sincerely apologize for the mistake that I did.
Because of my mistake I think all you guys are trying to do some
workarounds. Sorry for pitching in late to this thread as I was not in town
to access mails.
Next time I share surely be careful in such things.
Regards
Ram
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gregory Chanan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2012 10:00 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; lars hofhansl
> Subject: Re: 0.92/0.94 compatibility and HBASE-5206
>
> I filed HBASE-6710.
>
> Greg
>
> On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 8:21 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > I see. Makes sense. I made a trivial 0.94 patch for HBASE-6268.
> > Can you file a jira for the other changes you describe below?
> >
> > -- Lars
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Gregory Chanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 7:42 PM
> > Subject: Re: 0.92/0.94 compatibility and HBASE-5206
> >
> > @Lars: agreed on your point of leaving the name for the 92 znode the
> same.
> >
> > On upgrading a 0.94.0 or 0.94.1 cluster out of sync, I think it would
> work.
> > The 0.94.2 client should work against all 0.94.2, 0.94.1, and 0.94.0
> > versions (and all 0.92.x versions as well). We just need to apply
> > HBASE-6268 to 0.94.2. So you would first upgrade the client, then
> the
> > server(s). The reason this works is because the client, with HBASE-
> 6268
> > applied, can handle the znode being in either the 0.92 or 0.94
> format, it
> > doesn't need to know which is which. I'll of course test all this
> :).
> >
> > Greg
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 7:02 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Also, if understand this correctly this would not help if somebody
> had
> > > deployed an 0.94.0 or 0.94.1 cluster and want to upgrade the client
> and
> > > server out of sync.
> > > In one configuration the client would work against 0.94.0 and
> 0.94.1 but
> > > not against 0.94.2. In the other configuration the client would
> work
> > > against 0.94.2 but not against 0.94.0 or 0.94.1.
> > >
> > >
> > > There is however and clean upgrade path to 0.92.2 and from there to
> > 0.94.2
> > > if we just fix this in 0.92.2.
> > >
> > >
> > > -- Lars
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > To: Gregory Chanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 6:34 PM
> > > Subject: Re: 0.92/0.94 compatibility and HBASE-5206
> > >
> > > Sounds complicated. But since you are the folks with customers
> that'll
> > > upgrade to from 0.92 to 0.94, let's do this.
> > >
> > > The only input I'd have is that format we'll use going forward will
> not
> > > have a version attached to it.
> > >
> > > So maybe the 92 version would still be called
> > > "zookeeper.znode.tableEnableDisable" and the new node could have a
> > > different name "zookeeper.znode.tableEnableDisableNew" (or
> something).
> > >
> > > -- Lars
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Gregory Chanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 5:54 PM
> > > Subject: Re: 0.92/0.94 compatibility and HBASE-5206
> > >
> > >
> > > Actually, I think we can make 0.94.2 compatible with both
> {0.94.0,0.94.1}
> > > and {0.92.0,0.92.1}, although one of those sets will require
> > configuration
> > > changes.
> > >
> > > The basic problem is that there is a znode for each table
> > > "zookeeper.znode.tableEnableDisable" that is handled differently.
> > >
> > > On 0.92.0 and 0.92.1 the states for this table are:
> > > [ disabled, disabling, enabling ] or deleted if the table is
> enabled
> > >
> > > On 0.94.1 and 0.94.2 the states for this table are:
First time this issue was reported, I felt bad because HBASE-5155 was
introduced by me. I sincerely apologize for the mistake that I did.
Because of my mistake I think all you guys are trying to do some
workarounds. Sorry for pitching in late to this thread as I was not in town
to access mails.
Next time I share surely be careful in such things.
Regards
Ram
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gregory Chanan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2012 10:00 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; lars hofhansl
> Subject: Re: 0.92/0.94 compatibility and HBASE-5206
>
> I filed HBASE-6710.
>
> Greg
>
> On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 8:21 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > I see. Makes sense. I made a trivial 0.94 patch for HBASE-6268.
> > Can you file a jira for the other changes you describe below?
> >
> > -- Lars
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Gregory Chanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 7:42 PM
> > Subject: Re: 0.92/0.94 compatibility and HBASE-5206
> >
> > @Lars: agreed on your point of leaving the name for the 92 znode the
> same.
> >
> > On upgrading a 0.94.0 or 0.94.1 cluster out of sync, I think it would
> work.
> > The 0.94.2 client should work against all 0.94.2, 0.94.1, and 0.94.0
> > versions (and all 0.92.x versions as well). We just need to apply
> > HBASE-6268 to 0.94.2. So you would first upgrade the client, then
> the
> > server(s). The reason this works is because the client, with HBASE-
> 6268
> > applied, can handle the znode being in either the 0.92 or 0.94
> format, it
> > doesn't need to know which is which. I'll of course test all this
> :).
> >
> > Greg
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 7:02 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Also, if understand this correctly this would not help if somebody
> had
> > > deployed an 0.94.0 or 0.94.1 cluster and want to upgrade the client
> and
> > > server out of sync.
> > > In one configuration the client would work against 0.94.0 and
> 0.94.1 but
> > > not against 0.94.2. In the other configuration the client would
> work
> > > against 0.94.2 but not against 0.94.0 or 0.94.1.
> > >
> > >
> > > There is however and clean upgrade path to 0.92.2 and from there to
> > 0.94.2
> > > if we just fix this in 0.92.2.
> > >
> > >
> > > -- Lars
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > To: Gregory Chanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 6:34 PM
> > > Subject: Re: 0.92/0.94 compatibility and HBASE-5206
> > >
> > > Sounds complicated. But since you are the folks with customers
> that'll
> > > upgrade to from 0.92 to 0.94, let's do this.
> > >
> > > The only input I'd have is that format we'll use going forward will
> not
> > > have a version attached to it.
> > >
> > > So maybe the 92 version would still be called
> > > "zookeeper.znode.tableEnableDisable" and the new node could have a
> > > different name "zookeeper.znode.tableEnableDisableNew" (or
> something).
> > >
> > > -- Lars
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Gregory Chanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 5:54 PM
> > > Subject: Re: 0.92/0.94 compatibility and HBASE-5206
> > >
> > >
> > > Actually, I think we can make 0.94.2 compatible with both
> {0.94.0,0.94.1}
> > > and {0.92.0,0.92.1}, although one of those sets will require
> > configuration
> > > changes.
> > >
> > > The basic problem is that there is a znode for each table
> > > "zookeeper.znode.tableEnableDisable" that is handled differently.
> > >
> > > On 0.92.0 and 0.92.1 the states for this table are:
> > > [ disabled, disabling, enabling ] or deleted if the table is
> enabled
> > >
> > > On 0.94.1 and 0.94.2 the states for this table are:
-
RE: 0.92/0.94 compatibility and HBASE-5206Lars H 2012-09-03, 18:20
HBASE-5155 was against 0.96 only, so there was no problem.
The problem was HBASE-5206, which Ted and I did to recognize as a compatibility issue.
The fix was a good one. The issues we have now are not your fault. :)
-- Lars
"Ramkrishna.S.Vasudevan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
>Hi
>
>First time this issue was reported, I felt bad because HBASE-5155 was
>introduced by me. I sincerely apologize for the mistake that I did.
>Because of my mistake I think all you guys are trying to do some
>workarounds. Sorry for pitching in late to this thread as I was not in town
>to access mails.
>
>Next time I share surely be careful in such things.
>
>Regards
>Ram
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Gregory Chanan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>> Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2012 10:00 AM
>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; lars hofhansl
>> Subject: Re: 0.92/0.94 compatibility and HBASE-5206
>>
>> I filed HBASE-6710.
>>
>> Greg
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 8:21 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > I see. Makes sense. I made a trivial 0.94 patch for HBASE-6268.
>> > Can you file a jira for the other changes you describe below?
>> >
>> > -- Lars
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ________________________________
>> > From: Gregory Chanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 7:42 PM
>> > Subject: Re: 0.92/0.94 compatibility and HBASE-5206
>> >
>> > @Lars: agreed on your point of leaving the name for the 92 znode the
>> same.
>> >
>> > On upgrading a 0.94.0 or 0.94.1 cluster out of sync, I think it would
>> work.
>> > The 0.94.2 client should work against all 0.94.2, 0.94.1, and 0.94.0
>> > versions (and all 0.92.x versions as well). We just need to apply
>> > HBASE-6268 to 0.94.2. So you would first upgrade the client, then
>> the
>> > server(s). The reason this works is because the client, with HBASE-
>> 6268
>> > applied, can handle the znode being in either the 0.92 or 0.94
>> format, it
>> > doesn't need to know which is which. I'll of course test all this
>> :).
>> >
>> > Greg
>> >
>> > On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 7:02 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > Also, if understand this correctly this would not help if somebody
>> had
>> > > deployed an 0.94.0 or 0.94.1 cluster and want to upgrade the client
>> and
>> > > server out of sync.
>> > > In one configuration the client would work against 0.94.0 and
>> 0.94.1 but
>> > > not against 0.94.2. In the other configuration the client would
>> work
>> > > against 0.94.2 but not against 0.94.0 or 0.94.1.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > There is however and clean upgrade path to 0.92.2 and from there to
>> > 0.94.2
>> > > if we just fix this in 0.92.2.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > -- Lars
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > ________________________________
>> > > From: lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > > To: Gregory Chanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <
>> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > > Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 6:34 PM
>> > > Subject: Re: 0.92/0.94 compatibility and HBASE-5206
>> > >
>> > > Sounds complicated. But since you are the folks with customers
>> that'll
>> > > upgrade to from 0.92 to 0.94, let's do this.
>> > >
>> > > The only input I'd have is that format we'll use going forward will
>> not
>> > > have a version attached to it.
>> > >
>> > > So maybe the 92 version would still be called
>> > > "zookeeper.znode.tableEnableDisable" and the new node could have a
>> > > different name "zookeeper.znode.tableEnableDisableNew" (or
>> something).
>> > >
>> > > -- Lars
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > ________________________________
>> > > From: Gregory Chanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > > Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 5:54 PM
>> > > Subject: Re: 0.92/0.94 compatibility and HBASE-5206
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Actually, I think we can make 0.94.2 compatible with both
>> {0.94.0,0.94.1}
The problem was HBASE-5206, which Ted and I did to recognize as a compatibility issue.
The fix was a good one. The issues we have now are not your fault. :)
-- Lars
"Ramkrishna.S.Vasudevan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
>Hi
>
>First time this issue was reported, I felt bad because HBASE-5155 was
>introduced by me. I sincerely apologize for the mistake that I did.
>Because of my mistake I think all you guys are trying to do some
>workarounds. Sorry for pitching in late to this thread as I was not in town
>to access mails.
>
>Next time I share surely be careful in such things.
>
>Regards
>Ram
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Gregory Chanan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>> Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2012 10:00 AM
>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; lars hofhansl
>> Subject: Re: 0.92/0.94 compatibility and HBASE-5206
>>
>> I filed HBASE-6710.
>>
>> Greg
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 8:21 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > I see. Makes sense. I made a trivial 0.94 patch for HBASE-6268.
>> > Can you file a jira for the other changes you describe below?
>> >
>> > -- Lars
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ________________________________
>> > From: Gregory Chanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 7:42 PM
>> > Subject: Re: 0.92/0.94 compatibility and HBASE-5206
>> >
>> > @Lars: agreed on your point of leaving the name for the 92 znode the
>> same.
>> >
>> > On upgrading a 0.94.0 or 0.94.1 cluster out of sync, I think it would
>> work.
>> > The 0.94.2 client should work against all 0.94.2, 0.94.1, and 0.94.0
>> > versions (and all 0.92.x versions as well). We just need to apply
>> > HBASE-6268 to 0.94.2. So you would first upgrade the client, then
>> the
>> > server(s). The reason this works is because the client, with HBASE-
>> 6268
>> > applied, can handle the znode being in either the 0.92 or 0.94
>> format, it
>> > doesn't need to know which is which. I'll of course test all this
>> :).
>> >
>> > Greg
>> >
>> > On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 7:02 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > Also, if understand this correctly this would not help if somebody
>> had
>> > > deployed an 0.94.0 or 0.94.1 cluster and want to upgrade the client
>> and
>> > > server out of sync.
>> > > In one configuration the client would work against 0.94.0 and
>> 0.94.1 but
>> > > not against 0.94.2. In the other configuration the client would
>> work
>> > > against 0.94.2 but not against 0.94.0 or 0.94.1.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > There is however and clean upgrade path to 0.92.2 and from there to
>> > 0.94.2
>> > > if we just fix this in 0.92.2.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > -- Lars
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > ________________________________
>> > > From: lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > > To: Gregory Chanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <
>> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > > Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 6:34 PM
>> > > Subject: Re: 0.92/0.94 compatibility and HBASE-5206
>> > >
>> > > Sounds complicated. But since you are the folks with customers
>> that'll
>> > > upgrade to from 0.92 to 0.94, let's do this.
>> > >
>> > > The only input I'd have is that format we'll use going forward will
>> not
>> > > have a version attached to it.
>> > >
>> > > So maybe the 92 version would still be called
>> > > "zookeeper.znode.tableEnableDisable" and the new node could have a
>> > > different name "zookeeper.znode.tableEnableDisableNew" (or
>> something).
>> > >
>> > > -- Lars
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > ________________________________
>> > > From: Gregory Chanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > > Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 5:54 PM
>> > > Subject: Re: 0.92/0.94 compatibility and HBASE-5206
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Actually, I think we can make 0.94.2 compatible with both
>> {0.94.0,0.94.1}
