We are migrating from hbase 0.89.20100621+17 (20.4?) to 20.6 and have encountered some type of compatibility problem. To test the migration, we deployed 20.6 on a small cluster and copied a table from the hdfs:/hbase/tablename directory and re-created it using add_table.rb. We first tried this with 20.4 on the cluster and everything worked, we were able to scan the data, verify some contents, etc. When we installed 20.6 on it, the procedure was repeated (add_table.rb etc) but the table did not work. We were getting 0 for count 'tablename', and scans would not find any data. When we looked at the hdfs:/hbase/tablename directory, the old regions were there, but there were new, very short and suspicious "regions" in there with only a .regioninfo file in them. Is there a compatibility issue between 20.4 and 20.6 data?
Note directory listing trimmed to accomodate 80 char limit of maillist hbase@c2-m01:/usr/lib/hbase/bin$ hadoop fs -ls /hbase/myurlhash Found 16 items /hbase/myurlhash0e72138a329fa0c94a49cef92b680592 /hbase/myurlhash/1442012393 /hbase/myurlhash/1739287575 /hbase/myurlhash/1840351287 /hbase/myurlhash/188268934 /hbase/myurlhash/391140665 /hbase/myurlhash/3cffee491242b1502a6298305dfe3495 /hbase/myurlhash/406321816 /hbase/myurlhash/476529307 /hbase/myurlhash/478436003 /hbase/myurlhash/55f0dc7eb64684d253cce0f49270a0b4 /hbase/myurlhash/6110ff6921f39df866e0f0a4caecc7a6 /hbase/myurlhash/648cdaa84dc24e1ad3277c626c2fefbc /hbase/myurlhash/9c7d3dceea28e6d385b22970a8d3e516 /hbase/myurlhash/a60536a1ea341ce822efc98fc07106df /hbase/myurlhash/c8804788fbeb549c1ccfc4c54addc451 -- Robert Gonzalez
