@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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> > 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" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >I'm +1 on this. > > > > > >On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 9:54 AM, Justin Leet <[email protected]> > > 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 > > >> > > >
