bq. Don't know. Will shout if I find anything. Will try it soon (next week or so). Thank you sir, will wait for your note. Will also try the upgrade if time allows and shout if find anything.
Best Regards, Yu On 12 November 2017 at 04:46, Stack <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 9:06 PM, Yu Li <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Sorry for the late response boss. We're still on 1.1 and have been > keeping > > a close watch on 2.0 progress (silently though, sorry about this, > occupied > > by singles day). If 1.2 could rolling upgrade to 2.0, anything special > that > > prevents 1.1 to (could you please refer me to some JIRA)? Thanks. > > > > > Don't know. Will shout if I find anything. Will try it soon (next week or > so). > > > > Rolling upgrade is a must-have for us when choosing the next version, and > > since we have already backported the offheap work, 2.0 would be the first > > choice for us than 1.4 (to avoid the pain of another round patch porting) > > (smile) > > > > Good to know. > > Going to an intermediate version would be a PITA for you I'm sure. > > St.Ack > > > > > Best Regards, > > Yu > > > > On 9 November 2017 at 14:08, Stack <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > FYI, I'm resolving HBASE-13631 "Migration from 0.94 to 2.0.0" because > of > > > the discussion here on this thread. > > > > > > Sounds like 1.2 is minimum but lets try and see if we can go from 0.98. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > S > > > > > > On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 9:41 PM, Stack <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 6:19 PM, Guanghao Zhang <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> Our internal branch is based on 0.98. And we plan rolling to 2.0. > So I > > > >> will > > > >> take a try for rolling from 0.98 to 2.0. But we take a lot backport > to > > > our > > > >> internal branch, like async client, netty rpc client, serial > > > replication, > > > >> throttling, some replication improvements and so on. So our rolling > > > >> experience may not apply to community totally. I will post our > rolling > > > >> experience (which can apply to community 0.98 branch) after we > rolling > > > to > > > >> 2.0 :-). > > > >> > > > >> > > > > Let me try going from 0.98 then and see what is broke. Would be good > if > > > > you fellows could do one step rather than two. > > > > S > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> 2017-11-05 2:41 GMT+08:00 Stack <[email protected]>: > > > >> > > > >> > On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 9:01 PM, Guanghao Zhang < > [email protected]> > > > >> wrote: > > > >> > > > > >> > > Can we rolling from 0.98 and 1.1 to 1.2? If this rolling is ok, > > user > > > >> can > > > >> > > rolling to 2.0 by two steps, 0.98 to 1.2, then 1.2 to 2.0. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Yes. They could do that. Would be a pain. Might be able to go from > > > 0.98 > > > >> to > > > >> > 2.0 though... I've not tried it. > > > >> > St.Ack > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > 2017-11-04 11:25 GMT+08:00 Nick Dimiduk <[email protected]>: > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > 1.2 is good, but are we aware of anything that precludes 1.1? > > > 0.98? > > > >> On > > > >> > > disk > > > >> > > > compatibility (HFile, WAL, AMv2) should be the limiting factor > > > here, > > > >> > > right? > > > >> > > > Wire protocols have been compatible all the while... > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 5:56 PM Zach York < > > > >> [email protected] > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > wrote: > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > +1 for having the minimum (supported) hbase1 version be > 1.2.x. > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 5:30 PM, Stack <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Over in the adjacent "[DISCUSS] hbase-2.0.0 compatibility > > > >> > > expectations" > > > >> > > > > > thread, we chatted some on what would be the minimum > > hbase-1.x > > > >> > > version > > > >> > > > > from > > > >> > > > > > which you can upgrade to hbase-2. > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > The last statement made on this topic by Sean was that > only > > > >> > upgrades > > > >> > > > from > > > >> > > > > > 1.2.x, our current stable offering, or later should be > > > >> supported. > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > There was no dissent. > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > We all good w/ this? Speak up if you disagree else 1.2.x > > > becomes > > > >> > the > > > >> > > > > > 'official' minimum. > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > NOTES: > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > + We need to agree on a minimum so we know what migrations > > to > > > >> test. > > > >> > > > > > + It might be possible to upgrade from versions before > 1.2.x > > > >> but we > > > >> > > (or > > > >> > > > > at > > > >> > > > > > least I -- smile) won't have tried it or run verifications > > to > > > >> > ensure > > > >> > > > all > > > >> > > > > > made it over (let us know if you successfully migrate > from a > > > >> > baseline > > > >> > > > > that > > > >> > > > > > precedes 1.2). > > > >> > > > > > + Hopefully we can avoid requiring Users move to the > latest > > on > > > >> the > > > >> > > 1.2 > > > >> > > > > > branch. This shouldn't be necessary doing a stop/start > > > upgrade. > > > >> It > > > >> > > > might > > > >> > > > > be > > > >> > > > > > needed doing a rolling upgrade. Lets see. > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Thanks, > > > >> > > > > > St.Ack > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
