Hari Sekhon created AMBARI-10494:
------------------------------------

             Summary: Ambari 2.0 breaks Stack deployment of HDP 2.2.4.0 due to 
yum repo assumptions trying to install krb5-server
                 Key: AMBARI-10494
                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMBARI-10494
             Project: Ambari
          Issue Type: Bug
          Components: ambari-agent, ambari-server, stacks
    Affects Versions: 2.0.0
         Environment: HDP 2.2.0.0 => HDP 2.2.4.0
            Reporter: Hari Sekhon


When trying to upgrade from HDP 2.2.0 to 2.2.4 Ambari tries to install 
krb5-server on all nodes (why all nodes??) and but issues a yum command on 
RHEL6 that excludes nearly all repositories.
{code}Fail: Execution of '/usr/bin/yum -d 0 -e 0 -y install '--disablerepo=*' 
--enablerepo=base,HDP-UTILS-2.2.4.0,HDP-2.2.4.0 krb5-server' returned 1. Error: 
Nothing to do{code}
The reason this fails is because there is no "base" repo as packages are 
managed through Redhat Satellite server with internal repo names. This is a 
common deployment style in corporations that have strict border filtering so 
servers are not pulling packages directly from the internet (this is a bank).

The install of the new stack version actually did succeed on nodes where 
krb5-server happened to already be installed, so a workaround is to pre-install 
krb5-server on all nodes to allow it to simply skip this package.

I understand why the repo exclusions are done to try to force the right Hadoop 
rpms versions to be installed but it might be better to not exclude any repos 
for this krb5-server package, although I'm not sure why this package needs to 
be installed on all nodes anyway.

Also, if using parcels as I recommended in AMBARI-8815, repo exclusions 
wouldn't be needed at all and it would avoid this and other rpm/repo related 
problems, which is why Cloudera engineers switched to parcel deployments.

Hari Sekhon
(ex-Cloudera)
http://www.linkedin.com/in/harisekhon



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

Reply via email to