Lars, The upcoming CDH4 Beta HBase will be based on the latest hotness, 0.92.0. A CDH4 GA HBase will have to have an upgrade path from CDH3 HBase. If that HBase is 0.92 based, we'll test that, and if timing works out and we decide 0.94, we'll have to have a path (0.90->0.94) for than and will test that.
HBASE-2600 is a big change of encoding of meta, while my understanding is that 0.90->0,92 is a graceful HFile format conversion. Are there are things currently in trunk that further break compatiblity of the file format? (what jiras?) Jon. On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 9:16 AM, lars hofhansl <lhofha...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Not removing code for upgrade is fine. > > Todd, is Cloudera signing up for testing this path (0.90 to 0.94)? > > > Stack, what's your feeling w.r.t. to HBASE-2600, will keeping the 0.90 -> > 0.92 migration path > make the migration code for HBASE-2600 (much) more complicated in 0.94? > > > -- Lars > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Stack <st...@duboce.net> > To: dev@hbase.apache.org > Cc: > Sent: Friday, January 27, 2012 9:02 AM > Subject: Re: hbase 0.94.0 > > On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 8:42 AM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote: > > In this particular case, there was no explicit migration step needed > > going 0.90 to 0.92. Upgrading from 0.90 to 0.94 should just be > > running the 0.92 to 0.94 migration script (if there is one). > > > > Thinking more, the above only really holds if we keep the .META. > migration code that runs in 0.92 on startup on into 0.94 (I have a > patch here where I'm removing it... I should put this bit of code > back). > > I see Todd that you vote against removing hfile v1 in 0.94. To make > going from CDH3 to CDH4, we should not purge any migrating code or old > version support. > > I'd be fine w/ that. We'll need to work hard to ensure it taking it > on as a principal for 0.94. Ok w/ you "Iron Hand" Lars? > > St.Ack > > -- // Jonathan Hsieh (shay) // Software Engineer, Cloudera // j...@cloudera.com
