bq. rolling upgrade should be supported +1
Has anyone done preliminary testing where we stand (master branch) in this regard ? Cheers On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Nick Dimiduk <[email protected]> wrote: > This is a nice list already Matteo! > > +1, I think rolling upgrade should be supported -- said another way, we > need an *extremely* strong argument to justify NOT supporting rolling > upgrade. Your above approach sounds reasonable, and should allow for early > abort of the upgrade (i.e., before all machines are running new bits, > discontinue upgrade, restore old bits, everything keeps humming). > > I have a meta question (maybe worth a separate thread), which is, what will > be the relationship between 2.0 and branch-1? Are we considering keeping > branch-1 alive (i.e., 1.3) even as 2.0 is released? Seems like you're > thinking about this in your later reply, but I haven't seen this topic > discussed explicitly. > > On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 10:01 PM, Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > I filed HBASE-14379 as an umbrella to collect work for a "Replication V2" > > effort. The umbrella has a summary of principles and goals from the > > discussion at the recent dev meetup and a survey of open replication > > related issues. > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 9:42 PM, Matteo Bertozzi <[email protected] > > > > wrote: > > > > > on my list there are mainly major changes. > > > HBASE-13153 seems small enough that may also be considered for a > > branch-1. > > > > > > it will take at least 3 months to have a branch-2, > > > I don't want this thread to end up pointing out all minor jiras. > > > so, my rule is: if it is not a major architectural change and people +1 > > it, > > > it is in. > > > > > > Matteo > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 9:14 PM, Ted Yu <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Design for the following is being finalized: > > > > HBASE-13153 enable bulkload to support replication > > > > > > > > Do you think it should be included ? > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 8:42 PM, Matteo Bertozzi < > [email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hey folks, > > > > > > > > > > my list for 2.0 looks quite full, but I'm probably missing > something. > > > > > > > > > > main point is probably that we want to be rolling upgradable. > > > > > a direct rolling upgrade may be not easy, so the option is to do it > > in > > > > two > > > > > phases. > > > > > more or less: "after all the machines are on the new version > trigger > > an > > > > > update" (the new AM can help with it) > > > > > > > > > > * HBASE-14350 New Assignment Manager (based on proc-v2) > > > > > * Table Descriptor is not compatible with branch-1 due to > HBASE-7767 > > > > > ** this may be reverted/removed/fixed with the new AM > > > > > * HBASE-11425 Off heaping read path. write path? > > > > > * HBASE-14090 redofs, fix 1M region. file moving around and so on > > > > > * HBASE-14123 HBase Backups > > > > > * Replication > > > > > ** move znodes to replication table > > > > > ** speedup replication by streaming data > > > > > ** ability to run an endpoint as "user" and receive only "user" > > > events? > > > > > * HBASE-13936 Dynamic configuration > > > > > * HBASE-14070 HLC, was mentioned for branch-1. but maybe we can > try > > to > > > > get > > > > > seqid merged? > > > > > > > > > > Other stuff like the C++ client from facebook, or improvement to > the > > > > > Lawlor’s scanner work, spark integration, missing proc-v2 > conversion > > > and > > > > > more can probably make it in a branch-1. > > > > > > > > > > cutting a branch-2 will probably happen when we have the new AM, > but > > we > > > > > will see how things evolve. > > > > > > > > > > Anything else folks want to see called out? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Best regards, > > > > - Andy > > > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein > > (via Tom White) > > >
