Joey Echeverria 2013-07-26, 15:02
Eric Newton 2013-07-26, 15:25
Josh Elser 2013-07-26, 15:36
Keith Turner 2013-07-26, 15:45
Joey Echeverria 2013-07-26, 16:24
Keith Turner 2013-07-26, 17:20
Joey Echeverria 2013-07-26, 18:33
Billie Rinaldi 2013-07-26, 19:02
dlmarion@... 2013-07-26, 19:34
Joey Echeverria 2013-07-29, 17:23
Dave Marion 2013-08-01, 23:33
Sorry for the delay, it's been one of those weeks.
The current version would probably not be backwards compatible to
0.20.2 just based on changes in dependencies. We're looking right now
to see how hard it is to have three way compatibility (0.20, 1.0,
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 7:33 PM, Dave Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Any update?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joey Echeverria [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 1:24 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Hadoop 2.0 Support for Accumulo 1.4 Branch
> We're testing this today. I'll report back what we find.
> Sent from Mailbox for iPhone
> On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 3:34 PM, null <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> "Will 1.4 still work with 0.20 with these patches?"
>> Great point Billie.
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Billie Rinaldi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 3:02:41 PM
>> Subject: Re: Hadoop 2.0 Support for Accumulo 1.4 Branch On Fri, Jul
>> 26, 2013 at 11:33 AM, Joey Echeverria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> > If these patches are going to be included with 1.4.4 or 1.4.5, I
>>> > would
>>> > to see the following test run using CDH4 on at least a 5 node cluster.
>>> > More nodes would be better.
>>> > * unit test
>>> > * Functional test
>>> > * 24 hr Continuous ingest + verification
>>> > * 24 hr Continuous ingest + verification + agitation
>>> > * 24 hr Random walk
>>> > * 24 hr Random walk + agitation
>>> > I may be able to assist with this, but I can not make any promises.
>>> Sure thing. Is there already a write-up on running this full battery
>>> of tests? I have a 10 node cluster that I can use for this.
>>> > Great. I think this would be a good patch for 1.4. I assume that
>>> > if a user stays with Hadoop 1 there are no dependency changes?
>>> Yup. It works the same way as 1.5 where all of the dependency changes
>>> are in a Hadoop 2.0 profile.
>> In 1.5.0, we gave up on compatibility with 0.20 (and early versions of
>> 1.0) to make the compatibility requirements simpler; we ended up
>> without dependency changes in the hadoop version profiles. Will 1.4
>> still work with 0.20 with these patches? If there are dependency
>> changes in the profiles, 1.4 would have to be compiled against a
>> hadoop version compatible with the running version of hadoop, correct?
>> We had some trouble in the
>> 1.5 release process with figuring out how to provide multiple binary
>> artifacts (each compiled against a different version of hadoop) for
>> the same release. Just something we should consider before we are in
>> the midst of releasing 1.4.4.
Director, Federal FTS
Christopher 2013-08-02, 18:31
Joey Echeverria 2013-08-02, 18:37
Mike Drob 2013-08-02, 19:58
Joey Echeverria 2013-08-02, 20:03
Billie Rinaldi 2013-08-04, 22:54
Keith Turner 2013-07-26, 19:30
Sean Busbey 2013-10-14, 16:55