Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
NEW: Monitor These Apps!
elasticsearch, apache solr, apache hbase, hadoop, redis, casssandra, amazon cloudwatch, mysql, memcached, apache kafka, apache zookeeper, apache storm, ubuntu, centOS, red hat, debian, puppet labs, java, senseiDB
 Search Hadoop and all its subprojects:

Switch to Threaded View
HBase >> mail # dev >> Rolling restart from 0.92 to 0.94


Copy link to this message
-
Re: Rolling restart from 0.92 to 0.94
Link to this discussion we had in April about binary compatibility:
http://search-hadoop.com/m/Lg90wHGW981
On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 3:04 PM, James Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> My two cents: if we want to ensure we're backward compatible, we need to do
> two things: define clear boundaries of the classes and/or packages to which
> this applies, and run automated tests that verify that backward
> compatibility is maintained across point releases. Or maybe we have this
> and I'm not aware of it? The way that APIs are annotated in the later
> branches as public/private/evolving is a good thing, but unfortunately
> doesn't apply to the 0.94 branch. Maybe that could be back-ported?
>
> James
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 5:00 AM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Shrijeet Paliwal just pointed me to this section in the HBase
> bookhttp://
> > > hbase.apache.org/upgrading.html#upgrade0.94 (thanks Shrijeet):
> > >
> > >
> > > ----
> > > 1.3. Upgrading from 0.92.x to 0.94.x
> > > We used to think that 0.92 and 0.94 were interface compatible and that
> > you
> > > can do a rolling upgrade between these versions but then we figured
> that
> > > HBASE-5357 Use builder pattern in HColumnDescriptor changed method
> > > signatures so rather than return void they instead return
> > > HColumnDescriptor.  This will throw
> > > java.lang.NoSuchMethodError:
> > > org.apache.hadoop.hbase.HColumnDescriptor.setMaxVersions(I)V
> > > .... so 0.92 and 0.94 are NOT compatible.  You cannot do a rolling
> > upgrade
> > > between them.
> > > ----
> > >
> > >
> > > Is that statement actually correct? The issue here is binary code
> > > compatibility, which we indeed do not support, but which does not
> impede
> > > rolling upgrades between versions (as long as we're wire compatible
> > between
> > > releases, which we are).
> > >
> >
> > The statement overreaches with its absolute that the two are NOT
> > compatible.  If someone suggests text, I'll update the refguide.
> > St.Ack
> >
>
NEW: Monitor These Apps!
elasticsearch, apache solr, apache hbase, hadoop, redis, casssandra, amazon cloudwatch, mysql, memcached, apache kafka, apache zookeeper, apache storm, ubuntu, centOS, red hat, debian, puppet labs, java, senseiDB