[jira] [Comment Edited] (HBASE-19116) Currently the tail of hfiles with CellComparator* classname makes it so hbase1 can't open hbase2 written hfiles; fix
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-19116?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16298932#comment-16298932 ] stack edited comment on HBASE-19116 at 12/20/17 7:25 PM: - Above stack trace doesn't belong in this issue. Let me move it to its own (let me try [~ram_krish] suggestion), HBASE-19567 was (Author: stack): Above stack trace doesn't belong in this issue. Let me move it to its own (let me try [~ram_krish] suggestion) > Currently the tail of hfiles with CellComparator* classname makes it so > hbase1 can't open hbase2 written hfiles; fix > > > Key: HBASE-19116 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-19116 > Project: HBase > Issue Type: Sub-task > Components: HFile, migration >Reporter: stack >Assignee: stack >Priority: Critical > Fix For: 2.0.0-beta-2 > > > See tail of HBASE-19052 for discussion which concludes we should try and make > it so operators do not have to go to latest hbase version before they > upgrade, at least if we can avoid it. > The necessary change of our default comparator from KV to Cell naming has > hfiles with tails that have the classname CellComparator in them in place of > KeyValueComparator. If an hbase1 tries to open them, it will fail not having > a CellComparator in its classpath (We have name of comparator in tail because > different files require different comparators... perhaps we write an alias > instead of a class one day... TODO). HBASE-16189 and HBASE-19052 are about > trying to carry knowledge of hbase2 back to hbase1, a brittle approach making > it so operators will have to upgrade to the latest branch-1 before they can > go to hbase2. > This issue is about undoing our writing of an incompatible (to hbase1) tail, > not unless we really have to (and it sounds like we could do without writing > an incompatible tail) to see if we can avoid requiring operators go to > lastest branch-1 (we may end up needing this but lets a have a really good > reason for it if we do). > Oh, let this filing be an answer to our [~anoop.hbase]'s old high-level > question over in HBASE-16189: > bq. ...means when rolling upgrade done to 2.0, first users have to upgrade to > some 1.x versions which is having this fix and then to 2.0.. What do you guys > think Whether we should avoid this kind of indirection? cc Enis Soztutar, > Stack, Ted Yu, Matteo Bertozzi > Yeah, lets try to avoid this if we can... -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.4.14#64029)
[jira] [Comment Edited] (HBASE-19116) Currently the tail of hfiles with CellComparator* classname makes it so hbase1 can't open hbase2 written hfiles; fix
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-19116?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16240564#comment-16240564 ] Mike Drob edited comment on HBASE-19116 at 11/6/17 5:13 PM: Ah, so a rolling upgrade situation? Edit: Yes, ok, I see that in the original description now. Thanks for clarifying. was (Author: mdrob): Ah, so a rolling upgrade situation? > Currently the tail of hfiles with CellComparator* classname makes it so > hbase1 can't open hbase2 written hfiles; fix > > > Key: HBASE-19116 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-19116 > Project: HBase > Issue Type: Sub-task > Components: HFile, migration >Reporter: stack >Assignee: stack >Priority: Critical > Fix For: 2.0.0-beta-1 > > > See tail of HBASE-19052 for discussion which concludes we should try and make > it so operators do not have to go to latest hbase version before they > upgrade, at least if we can avoid it. > The necessary change of our default comparator from KV to Cell naming has > hfiles with tails that have the classname CellComparator in them in place of > KeyValueComparator. If an hbase1 tries to open them, it will fail not having > a CellComparator in its classpath (We have name of comparator in tail because > different files require different comparators... perhaps we write an alias > instead of a class one day... TODO). HBASE-16189 and HBASE-19052 are about > trying to carry knowledge of hbase2 back to hbase1, a brittle approach making > it so operators will have to upgrade to the latest branch-1 before they can > go to hbase2. > This issue is about undoing our writing of an incompatible (to hbase1) tail, > not unless we really have to (and it sounds like we could do without writing > an incompatible tail) to see if we can avoid requiring operators go to > lastest branch-1 (we may end up needing this but lets a have a really good > reason for it if we do). > Oh, let this filing be an answer to our [~anoop.hbase]'s old high-level > question over in HBASE-16189: > bq. ...means when rolling upgrade done to 2.0, first users have to upgrade to > some 1.x versions which is having this fix and then to 2.0.. What do you guys > think Whether we should avoid this kind of indirection? cc Enis Soztutar, > Stack, Ted Yu, Matteo Bertozzi > Yeah, lets try to avoid this if we can... -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.4.14#64029)
