the current proc-v2 does not do anything magic, and does not do communication from master to RSs, so there is nothing related to rolling upgrades. and there is a test that verifies client compatibility. you can do rolling upgrade between 0.98 to 1.2+. you can have mix matched client and server version or master version and everything works as before. of course you don't have the benefit of proc-v2 until your cluster is updated. (if something fails in the middle of a master operation you still have to run hbck)
Matteo On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 11:57 AM, Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> wrote: > Just to be clear, of course this doesn't work if pv2 isn't opt out, so > that's the question I'm really asking - should we / can we do that? > > On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 11:55 AM, Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > 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? > > > > This is a valid concern certainly. How we handled this in the 0.98 era, > > which admittedly is looser by intent, is say that rolling upgrade are > > supported IF the server fleet does not toggle on any new feature until > all > > server instances have been upgraded. Would that work here? I think it's a > > reasonable story. > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 6:47 AM, Jonathan Hsieh <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> 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 > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Best regards, > > > > - Andy > > > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein > > (via Tom White) > > > > > > -- > Best regards, > > - Andy > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein > (via Tom White) >
