Wasn't all the effort to go to end to end "protobuf messaging" meant to support rolling upgrades across major versions?
Perhaps I may be missing the point, but for us post-Singularity release, the assumption was that all upgrades, major & minor, could be done "rolling" as proto bufs would ensure backward compatibility. This was a pretty important feature to allow us to upgrade live clusters without down times. --Suraj On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 3:16 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't think we can or should guarantee a clean *rolling* upgrade from > hbase 1.0 to 2.0. However, we absolutely should have a shutdown restart > 1.0 -> 2.0 upgrade. > > The whole point of a major version is to allow for api and compat breaking. > > There are a lot of things in flight that will likely make rolling upgrade > hard to do -- for example removing zk and some of the proposals for > consensus protocols that are trying to get in to 2.0 won't be compatible > with older clients. Also, the deployment will likely be different due to > the combined master/meta options and some of the proposals for having meta > splitting/sharded again will break a 1.0 client. > > Jon. > > > On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 2:35 PM, Ted Yu <[email protected]> wrote: > > > bq. 1.0 to 2.0 we need to sure > > > > +1 on supporting rolling upgrade from 1.0 to 2.0 > > > > Cheers > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 11:24 AM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > My opinion: > > > > > > If we have support for 0.98 to 1.00, support from 0.94 to 1.00 might be > > > pretty the same thing. > > > > > > After that, 2,0 might be far in the future. So 0.94 to 2.0 direct I'm > not > > > sure it's required. 1.0 to 2.0 we need to sure. People looking to > upgrade > > > from 0.94 to 2.0 might have to go to 1.0 first? I don't think it will > be > > a > > > big constraint. But still, it all depends on the effort of work > required > > to > > > implement upgrade from 0.94 to 2.0. If it's simple, let's to it. Else, > > > let's ask people to migrate to 1.0 first. > > > > > > Just my 2 ยข ;) > > > > > > > > > 2014-08-29 14:19 GMT-04:00 Esteban Gutierrez <[email protected]>: > > > > > > > Hello all, > > > > > > > > Per suggestion of Sean in HBASE-11860 I'm sending this to the list to > > > > discuss this idea: > > > > > > > > I've been thinking that we should support upgrades from HBase > clusters > > > > running 0.94 to HBase 1.x initially. Do you guys concur that we > should > > > > support that upgrade path to HBase 1.x and depending the adoption of > > 1.x > > > > consider to extend or deprecate the same functionality in HBase 2.x? > > > > > > > > regards, > > > > esteban. > > > > -- > > > > Cloudera, Inc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > // Jonathan Hsieh (shay) > // HBase Tech Lead, Software Engineer, Cloudera > // [email protected] // @jmhsieh >
