Re: Hadoop 2.6.1+ recommendations
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 12:15 PM, Sean Busbey wrote: > Elliot what (approximate) HBase version has that been with? 1.0? > 1.2.0-SNAPSHOT
Re: Hadoop 2.6.1+ recommendations
excellent point. I filed HBASE-14810. On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 10:58 AM, Nick Dimiduk wrote: > I've verified compilation at least of 1.1.x on 2.6 releases. I'm fine with > upgrading "X" to "NT" for this combination. > > While we're in there, we should also clarify the meaning of "Not Supported" > vs "Not Tested". It seems we don't say what we mean by these distinctions. > > On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 7:15 AM, Sean Busbey wrote: > > > Heya folks, > > > > In response to our push the Hadoop community has been making patch > releases > > on the 2.6 and 2.7 line. So far on 2.6 they've gotten out 2, with the > first > > containing fixes for all of the critical issues that led to us marking > > 2.6.0 as a no-no[1]. > > > > Any opposition to adding in a line for 2.6.1+ similar to the 2.7.1+ line? > > Thoughts on which versions of HBase it should apply to? > > > > [1]: http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#hadoop > > > > -- > > Sean > > > -- Sean
Re: Hadoop 2.6.1+ recommendations
Elliot what (approximate) HBase version has that been with? 1.0? On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 11:48 AM, Elliott Clark wrote: > We've been running a version of 2.6.X for a while and it's been quite > stable for us. I would be +1 for supporting 2.6.1+ > > On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 8:58 AM, Nick Dimiduk wrote: > > > I've verified compilation at least of 1.1.x on 2.6 releases. I'm fine > with > > upgrading "X" to "NT" for this combination. > > > > While we're in there, we should also clarify the meaning of "Not > Supported" > > vs "Not Tested". It seems we don't say what we mean by these > distinctions. > > > > On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 7:15 AM, Sean Busbey > wrote: > > > > > Heya folks, > > > > > > In response to our push the Hadoop community has been making patch > > releases > > > on the 2.6 and 2.7 line. So far on 2.6 they've gotten out 2, with the > > first > > > containing fixes for all of the critical issues that led to us marking > > > 2.6.0 as a no-no[1]. > > > > > > Any opposition to adding in a line for 2.6.1+ similar to the 2.7.1+ > line? > > > Thoughts on which versions of HBase it should apply to? > > > > > > [1]: http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#hadoop > > > > > > -- > > > Sean > > > > > > -- Sean
Re: Hadoop 2.6.1+ recommendations
FWIW, we're also running a version of 2.6* with 0.98 for a while now and it's stable. * - We patched in HDFS level infinite timeout fixes (like HDFS-7005) and the fix for HBase corruption when using at-rest encryption, and these are in 2.6.1+. On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 9:48 AM, Elliott Clark wrote: > We've been running a version of 2.6.X for a while and it's been quite > stable for us. I would be +1 for supporting 2.6.1+ > > On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 8:58 AM, Nick Dimiduk wrote: > > > I've verified compilation at least of 1.1.x on 2.6 releases. I'm fine > with > > upgrading "X" to "NT" for this combination. > > > > While we're in there, we should also clarify the meaning of "Not > Supported" > > vs "Not Tested". It seems we don't say what we mean by these > distinctions. > > > > On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 7:15 AM, Sean Busbey > wrote: > > > > > Heya folks, > > > > > > In response to our push the Hadoop community has been making patch > > releases > > > on the 2.6 and 2.7 line. So far on 2.6 they've gotten out 2, with the > > first > > > containing fixes for all of the critical issues that led to us marking > > > 2.6.0 as a no-no[1]. > > > > > > Any opposition to adding in a line for 2.6.1+ similar to the 2.7.1+ > line? > > > Thoughts on which versions of HBase it should apply to? > > > > > > [1]: http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#hadoop > > > > > > -- > > > Sean > > > > > > -- Best regards, - Andy Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein (via Tom White)
Re: Hadoop 2.6.1+ recommendations
We've been running a version of 2.6.X for a while and it's been quite stable for us. I would be +1 for supporting 2.6.1+ On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 8:58 AM, Nick Dimiduk wrote: > I've verified compilation at least of 1.1.x on 2.6 releases. I'm fine with > upgrading "X" to "NT" for this combination. > > While we're in there, we should also clarify the meaning of "Not Supported" > vs "Not Tested". It seems we don't say what we mean by these distinctions. > > On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 7:15 AM, Sean Busbey wrote: > > > Heya folks, > > > > In response to our push the Hadoop community has been making patch > releases > > on the 2.6 and 2.7 line. So far on 2.6 they've gotten out 2, with the > first > > containing fixes for all of the critical issues that led to us marking > > 2.6.0 as a no-no[1]. > > > > Any opposition to adding in a line for 2.6.1+ similar to the 2.7.1+ line? > > Thoughts on which versions of HBase it should apply to? > > > > [1]: http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#hadoop > > > > -- > > Sean > > >
Re: Hadoop 2.6.1+ recommendations
I've verified compilation at least of 1.1.x on 2.6 releases. I'm fine with upgrading "X" to "NT" for this combination. While we're in there, we should also clarify the meaning of "Not Supported" vs "Not Tested". It seems we don't say what we mean by these distinctions. On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 7:15 AM, Sean Busbey wrote: > Heya folks, > > In response to our push the Hadoop community has been making patch releases > on the 2.6 and 2.7 line. So far on 2.6 they've gotten out 2, with the first > containing fixes for all of the critical issues that led to us marking > 2.6.0 as a no-no[1]. > > Any opposition to adding in a line for 2.6.1+ similar to the 2.7.1+ line? > Thoughts on which versions of HBase it should apply to? > > [1]: http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#hadoop > > -- > Sean >
Re: Hadoop 2.6.1+ recommendations
bq. adding in a line for 2.6.1+ similar to the 2.7.1+ line +1 We should periodically update the matrix with new hadoop releases. Cheers On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 7:15 AM, Sean Busbey wrote: > Heya folks, > > In response to our push the Hadoop community has been making patch releases > on the 2.6 and 2.7 line. So far on 2.6 they've gotten out 2, with the first > containing fixes for all of the critical issues that led to us marking > 2.6.0 as a no-no[1]. > > Any opposition to adding in a line for 2.6.1+ similar to the 2.7.1+ line? > Thoughts on which versions of HBase it should apply to? > > [1]: http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#hadoop > > -- > Sean >
