Let's have some testing of this before we commit to this decision. I'd hate for us to be in a situation where reality doesn't jive with theory due to something self inflicted. I also feel that removing well exercised code paths in minor versions seems risky. (No qualms for removing in major version)
My main concern isn't hbase client to hbase server. I buy that. I'm concerned about a sever side hbase rolling upgrade where masters and rs's are different versions / settings. E.g. Does a pv2 only master failover properly with a nonpv2 master in the presence of mixed version rs's. Does the master failover test cover this situation? Jon On Monday, July 6, 2015, Enis Söztutar <[email protected] <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> wrote: > > > > > > > Would not being able to opt out of this break rolling upgrade from 1.0 > or > > 1.1? > > > > It should not (in theory). The client side does not need to know that the > operation is executed via proc v2. The HBaseAdmin class has the > compatibility layer to work with masters which know about proc v2 or not. > And if the client does not know about proc v2, it will still observe the > side affects (whether the tables regions are created in meta, etc) and work > as expected. > > > > > > > > > Enis > > > > > > On Sun, Jul 5, 2015 at 2:01 PM, Sean Busbey <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 5, 2015 1:36 PM, "Stack" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jul 4, 2015 at 4:01 PM, Sean Busbey <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Folks! > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe I've now worked through the logistics to put up the > first > > > RC > > > > for > > > > > > 1.2.0. At the moment I'm waiting on a Procedure V2 blocker[1], > > which > > > I > > > > hope > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > May I add HBASE-14012 to the above list Sean? (Almost done) > > > > > > > > > > > > > Fine by me. Please make sure it is blocker priority with a fix > version > > of > > > > 1.2.0. > > > > > > > > > 1.2.0 has Distributed Log Replay enabled by default. We good with > > this? > > > > > I've not done much testing with it enabled. Have others? > > > > > > > > > > > > > I haven't yet. I figured during RC0 I'd try to hit it hard and then > > file > > > > tickets as needed. > > > > > > > > If we leave it on we'll need docs for how to do a rolling upgrade. > > > > > > > > > 1.2.0 also has flush-by-store enabled by default. This has been > > tested > > > a > > > > > bunch and looks pretty good to me. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Good to hear, this and can't-opt-out-procv2 are my other big > unknowns. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > // Jonathan Hsieh (shay) > > // HBase Tech Lead, Software Engineer, Cloudera > > // [email protected] // @jmhsieh > > > -- // Jonathan Hsieh (shay) // HBase Tech Lead, Software Engineer, Cloudera // [email protected] // @jmhsieh
