Do you have a list of test cases you've tried? (like with/without walogs, custom iterators on tables, delete markers for the metadata table, etc.)?
If we could consolidate some of those into a comprehensive list, that'd be pretty useful, I'd think, to give confidence that we didn't miss anything in the review. It might also help focus testing for 1.6.1 release after you've pushed. -- Christopher L Tubbs II http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 4:39 PM, Sean Busbey <[email protected]> wrote: > Friendly reminder that direct upgrades from 1.4 to 1.6 is under review: > > https://reviews.apache.org/r/23413/ > > Pending any additional concerns, I'll be pushing this soon. > > > On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 2:22 PM, Sean Busbey <[email protected]> wrote: > > > An initial port of the 1.4 -> 1.6 upgrade code for the current > > 1.6.1-SNAPSHOT branch is now up: > > > > * https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-2988 > > * https://reviews.apache.org/r/23413/ > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 2:36 PM, Christopher <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> Cool. Thanks, Sean! > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Christopher L Tubbs II > >> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii > >> > >> > >> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 3:25 PM, Sean Busbey <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >> > I'll be creating a ticket and posting a patch this week. > >> > > >> > > >> > On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Christopher <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > > >> > > So, just to revisit this conversation, it seems like there is > >> interest in > >> > > supporting this. Is there already a ticket for it and/or somebody > >> > > interested in doing the necessary work for 1.6.1? > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > -- > >> > > Christopher L Tubbs II > >> > > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 11:07 AM, Mike Drob <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > > > >> > > > In a nutshell: stop 1.4, install 1.6, copy the WALs to HDFS > >> > > > (ACCUMULO-2770), start 1.6 > >> > > > > >> > > > Mike > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 5:54 PM, Drew Farris < > [email protected] > >> > > >> > > > wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > > > Mike, > >> > > > > > >> > > > > So works just like upgrading from 1.5? > >> > > > > > >> > > > > (After 1.4 shutdown, install 1.6 and restart?) > >> > > > > > >> > > > > That sounds entirely reasonable. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Drew > >> > > > > On Jun 17, 2014 10:52 PM, "Mike Drob" <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > We initially tried to set it up as a stand-alone utility but > >> > > eventually > >> > > > > > gave up. In order to properly do the upgrade, you concurrently > >> need > >> > > to > >> > > > > run > >> > > > > > whatever upgrade code concurrently with a tablet server > hosting > >> > > > !METADATA > >> > > > > > and a tablet server that can replay WALs. We ended up > >> duplicating a > >> > > lot > >> > > > > of > >> > > > > > logic already present in master before scrapping that plan. An > >> > > > > alternative > >> > > > > > would have been to try to build on MAC, but that was also > >> > non-trivial > >> > > > to > >> > > > > > deploy, so we spliced the code into the existing upgrade path. > >> How > >> > do > >> > > > you > >> > > > > > feel about that, Drew? > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 8:57 PM, Drew Farris < > >> > [email protected]> > >> > > > > > wrote: > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > I'm +1 for a utility that would allow us to go directly from > >> 1.4 > >> > to > >> > > > > 1.6. > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > In terms of a general policy, I suggest we make this sort of > >> > > decision > >> > > > > on > >> > > > > > a > >> > > > > > > case by case basis. My unreasonably self-centered intuition > >> > > suggests > >> > > > > that > >> > > > > > > there may be some folks that want to go from 1.4 to 1.6 now > >> due > >> > to > >> > > a > >> > > > > > > relatively short 1.5 cycle. The need to jump multiple > versions > >> > like > >> > > > > might > >> > > > > > > not exist in the future. > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Sean Busbey < > >> > [email protected]> > >> > > > > > wrote: > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > In an effort to get more users off of our now unsupported > >> 1.4 > >> > > > > release, > >> > > > > > > > should we support upgrading directly to 1.6 without going > >> > > through a > >> > > > > 1.5 > >> > > > > > > > upgrade? > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > More directly for those on user@: would you be more > likely > >> to > >> > > > > upgrade > >> > > > > > > off > >> > > > > > > > of 1.4 if you could do so directly to 1.6? > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > We have this working locally at Cloudera as a part of our > >> CDH > >> > > > > > integration > >> > > > > > > > (we shipped 1.4 and we're planning to ship 1.6 next). > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > We can get into implementation details on a jira if > there's > >> > > > positive > >> > > > > > > > consensus, but the changes weren't very complicated. > They're > >> > > mostly > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > * forward porting and consolidating some upgrade code > >> > > > > > > > * additions to the README for instructions > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Personally, I can see the both sides of the argument. On > the > >> > plus > >> > > > > side, > >> > > > > > > > anything to get more users off of 1.4 is a good thing. On > >> the > >> > > > > negative > >> > > > > > > > side, it means we have the 1.4 related upgrade code > sitting > >> in > >> > a > >> > > > > > > supported > >> > > > > > > > code branch longer. > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Thoughts? > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > -- > >> > > > > > > > Sean > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > -- > >> > Sean > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Sean > > > > > > -- > Sean >
