Glad this was just a false alarm. If you do try out security features, or believe you see errors as a consequence of them going in, I am very interested in hearing about it, even if a false alarm, and will take care of it if there is a real issue.
Best regards, - Andy >________________________________ > From: Mikhail Bautin <bautin.mailing.li...@gmail.com> >To: dev@hbase.apache.org >Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 6:04 PM >Subject: Re: security/configuration-related error when trying to create a table > >Figured this out -- this was a false alarm. I accidentally overrode my >hbase jar with the hbase test jar, so it was legitimately complaining about >not being able to find a valid hbase-default.xml. > >Thanks! >--Mikhail > >On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 4:15 PM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <jdcry...@apache.org>wrote: > >> Do you have an hbase-default.xml file somewhere? It should only exist >> in the jar now, it's not in conf/ anymore. >> >> J-D >> >> On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Mikhail Bautin >> <bautin.mailing.li...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > Hello, >> > >> > I am getting the following when trying to create a table from the >> > load-tester tool ported from 0.89-fb (https://reviews.facebook.net/D549 >> ). >> > It is weird that configuration instantiation fails given that it >> succeeded >> > earlier in the tool's workflow. Does anyone know why are we >> instantiating a >> > new configuration in HadoopUser's constructor, and why it could fail as >> if >> > it had a different classpath without the normal hbase-default.xml on it? >> > >> > Caused by: org.apache.hadoop.ipc.RemoteException: java.io.IOException: >> > java.lang.RuntimeException: hbase-default.xml file seems to be for and >> old >> > version of HBase (null), this version is 0.93-SNAPSHOT >
