@Carolyn I'm inclined to call that a separate ticket since there's a
separate effort there.  I'd link METRON-495 as a blocker to that ticket

@Casey 100% agree that we'll need to be pretty on top of testing, and
specific components to make sure we hit are absolutely a good topic for
this discussion if anyone wants to add onto your list.

Justin

On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 3:07 PM, Casey Stella <ceste...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I think this would be good (+1 for me), but we should be quite careful that
> the testing for this PR is...exhaustive as it'll touch so much.
> At the very least, we'll need to ensure that:
>
>    - Ansible full-dev and quick-dev continue to work
>    - Ambari install continues to function
>    - Data flows through the topologies and into kibana
>    - Pcap ingestion continues to function
>
> Also, just to point out that with new versions come new dependencies (and
> versions), so you may experience some classpath issues.
>
> Casey
>
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 10:35 AM, Carolyn Duby <cd...@hortonworks.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Storm 1.0 will allow config of kafka with SSL.  Should I comment on
> > METRON-495 or maybe it is better as a separate lira?
> >
> > Thanks
> > Carolyn
> >
> >
> >
> > On 10/11/16, 10:07 AM, "David Lyle" <dlyle65...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >I'm +1 on this.
> > >
> > >On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 9:54 AM, Justin Leet <justinjl...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi all,
> > >>
> > >> I wanted to start a thread around upgrading our Storm version from
> > 0.10.x
> > >> to 1.0.x.  I created a Jira at
> > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/METRON-495 to mirror this
> > discussion
> > >> and the results and opinions.
> > >>
> > >> As listed at https://storm.apache.org/2016/
> 04/12/storm100-released.html
> > ,
> > >> there's a variety of improvements with Storm 1.0.  The obvious and
> > likely
> > >> most important improvement is to performance, but a variety of other
> > >> improvements are noted on that link.
> > >>
> > >> There are several changes that have to occur in order to make this
> > upgrade.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> As noted in http://storm.apache.org/releases/current/index.html,
> > Storm's
> > >> code packages moved from backtype.storm to org.apache.storm, meaning
> all
> > >> topologies have to be recompiled if that change.  There is a runtime
> > >> converter to run things in place with backtype.storm, but this doesn't
> > >> appear to be enough for our case because a couple interfaces change
> from
> > >> byte[] to ByteBuffer (somewhat, but not entirely, related to
> > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-1449). Even without this
> > >> issue,
> > >> the long term solution is to use the new package naming.
> > >>
> > >> In addition, our dev instances right now spin up an HDP 2.4 instance,
> > which
> > >> matches our current version of Storm. HDP 2.5 uses Storm 1.0.1, so to
> > >> migrate to Storm 1.0.x, I'd prefer to match that version, rather than
> > going
> > >> to 1.0.2.
> > >>
> > >> If there's anything I missed, or anything the group should be aware of
> > in
> > >> this transition (Anybody lived done this upgrade on another project
> and
> > >> have input?), I'd love to hear it.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> Justin
> > >>
> >
>

Reply via email to