I do not want to see anything get re-written between a 1.6.1 system going down and a 1.6.2 system coming up. We have a wire compatibility promise amongst the double-dot releases, and parts moving around really make me nervous. I think it's just too big of a change.
I have no problem with rewriting anything in the internals between 1.6.x and 1.7.0 (or 2.0.0). Based on experience, it will be a lot harder to implement as a stand-alone utility, but I do not have strong preferences on stand-alone or part of the upgrade process. On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 8:37 PM, Josh Elser <[email protected]> wrote: > On 7/22/14, 12:51 PM, Keith Turner wrote: > >> Had some discussion w/ Dave Marion about the need to drop relatavie paths >> from internal metadata. From a user standpoint the requirement to >> possibly >> configure instance.dfs.uri and instance.dfs.dir if they might have >> relative >> paths is confusing over the long term. Also it places more of a >> maintenance burden on us if we need to ensure all bug fixes and new >> features work properly w/ relative paths. >> > > Assuming that we squash relative paths by 1.7.0, we shouldn't have any > additional burden on new feature work because there should be no new > features in 1.6. Bug fixes are still potentially more complex. > > I think everyone would agree that 1.6.0 should've nuked relative paths > (I'm sorry if I squash anyone's opinions, but that was the impression I got > before 1.6.0 came out). I think trying to eradicate them in 1.6 would just > add even more confusion to an already sufficiently confusing situation. If > a sufficiently simple approach came be thought of for a 1.6.x, I would be > open to hear it. > > > What are our options and what should the timeline be? We could require >> the >> user to do something to remove all relative paths before before starting >> 1.7.0 for example. >> >> Some of the things we discussed >> >> * Provide a utility to rewrite all relative paths >> * Rework the volume replacement code to work w/ relative paths >> >> A stand alone utility is tricky. Don't want to modify tablet metadata if >> the table is loaded. Thats why the volume replacement code has the >> tablets >> themselves do the replacement. >> > > I think I like the idea of writing a standalone utility as, while the > "safe" conditions to run such a utility are harder, getting the rewrite > correct is much easier. Didn't Sean already write some sort of check for an > "is Accumulo off" environment? > > > I like the idea of reworking the volume replacement code, but I do not >> like >> the idea of it happening automatically (like the first time 1.6.2 is >> started). Could possibly have a boolean config >> instance.volume.replaceRelative. When this is set, as tablets are loaded >> and when the GC starts relative paths would be replaced using current >> instance.dfs.* config or hdfs config. >> >> Still uncertain about the best solution. Looking for the course of least >> user confusion and least maintenance. I think >> instance.volume.replaceRelative is a bit confusing from a user >> perspective. >> >> What other options are there to solve this problem? Any issue w/ the >> premise? >> >>
