St.Ack,
Thanks, I read it, and actually we did tried upgrading in our QA for our
real time app from 0.20.3 to 0.90.2 on Hadoop 0.20.2, but just replaced
the hadoop-core with hadoop-core-0.20-append-r1056497.jar (thought it is
a append anyway) shipped from Hbase 0.90.2 based on Michael Noll's
suggestion. What do you think about this option and will have any
potential issue? - Andy Zhong    


 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
Stack
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 11:30 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Question about Thrift when upgrading from Hbase .20.6 to
.90.3

Andy:

Please see http://hbase.apache.org/book/hadoop.html for our hadoop
versions story.

St.Ack

On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 9:00 PM, Zhong, Andy <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
> Karl,
>
> Sorry but could you let me know which hadoop version is being used, 
> and any compatible issue? It seems Hbase 0.90.2 and 0.90.3 are 
> compatible only on 0.20-append only.
>
> Thanks,
> Andy Zhong
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Karl Kuntz [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 1:59 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Question about Thrift when upgrading from Hbase .20.6 to 
> .90.3
>
> Current version .20.6
> Upgrade target 90.3
>
> So Hbase .20.6 uses Thrift .2 and Hbase .90.3 makes use of Thrift .5.
> We currently use the supplied ThriftServer in Hbase.
>
> In my initial testing for the upgrade, I've not seen any issues using 
> code that was generated/compiled against the earlier versions of 
> hbase/thrift and simply pointing them at the latest ThriftServer 
> supplied with .90.3 I don't see thrift mentioned specifically in the 
> upgrade topic in the book, and couldn't find any directly related 
> topics on the mailing list, so I would like to just verify this is the

> expected result.
>
> Am I missing something subtle that could cause issues later?
>
> Would updating client code to use Thrift .5 provide a performance (or 
> some other nice) improvement?
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Karl
>
>
>

Reply via email to