Friso, If you're running the SU HBase on cdh3b3 hadoop, make sure the SU branch includes the patch for HBASE-3194 or be sure to apply it yourself. Without it you'll get compilation errors due to the security changes in cdh3b3.
Gary On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 12:26 AM, Friso van Vollenhoven < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi All, > Thanks for all the feedback. Because I need a 'works right now' version, I > am going to go for 0.89-<somtehing> with some patches applied (basically > SU's version on top of CDH3b3 Hadoop), with a planned upgrade path to CDH3 > when it reaches b4 or final (or any state that I have time for to test on > our dev boxes). > > Thanks > Friso > > > On 23 nov 2010, at 02:30, Todd Lipcon wrote: > > > On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 3:44 PM, Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >>> On Mon, 11/22/10, Todd Lipcon <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> Once 0.90 is released, we plan on spending a week or two to suss > >>> out any possible integration issues, and then release CDH3b4 > >>> including 0.90. > >> > >> I'm sure that will make everyone happy. :-) Glad to hear the projected > time > >> between releases will be short. That was my concern. > >> > >> > > Yes, a reasonably stable HBase 0.90 is one of the primary gating > functions > > for the next beta. The qualification of "reasonably stable" is sometimes > > hard to quantify, but in general my rubric has been to run a small test > > cluster under heavy load for 24+ hours with a configuration that stresses > > splits, compactions, and flushes, and occasionally kill -9 one of the > nodes. > > > > -Todd > > -- > > Todd Lipcon > > Software Engineer, Cloudera > >
