+ User list I am planning to upgrade 0.94's default Hadoop to 1.2.1.
Please speak up now if you think this is an issue. Thanks. -- Lars ________________________________ From: lars hofhansl <[email protected]> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 7:10 PM Subject: Re: Default hadoop version for 0.94? Ok... I will make that so. Of course the 1.0.x target will stay, just that the default of the sample tarballs will change to 1.2.1. -- Lars ________________________________ From: Ted Yu <[email protected]> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 3:55 PM Subject: Re: Default hadoop version for 0.94? For hadoop-1.0 profile, currently version 1.0.4 is used. Setting up a new build against hadoop 1.0.4 when the original build switches to using 1.2.1 would be good. On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 3:48 PM, Enis Söztutar <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 for hadoop 1.2. However, my only concern is that we should be able to > still build and work with 1.0.3 and 1.1.x. Maybe we should create jenkins > build for those? > > > On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > Excellent. Thanks Ted. > > > > > > 2013/10/17 Ted Yu <[email protected]> > > > > > bq. Will that make anything faster to have 1.2 as the default version > > > instead of 1.0? > > > > > > You can get to release notes from this thread: > > > http://search-hadoop.com/m/pFao2kKHDm1 > > > > > > A few examples: > > > > > > MAPREDUCE-5368 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MAPREDUCE-5368>. > > > Major improvement reported by zhaoyunjiong and fixed by zhaoyunjiong > > (mrv1) > > > *Save memory by set capacity, load factor and concurrency level for > > > ConcurrentHashMap in TaskInProgress* > > > * > > > * > > > HADOOP-8971 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-8971>. Major > > > improvement reported by gopalv and fixed by gopalv (util) > > > *Backport: hadoop.util.PureJavaCrc32 cache hit-ratio is low for static > > data > > > (HADOOP-8926)** > > > * > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari < > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > I think also we should be able to compile against v1 if required. > Don't > > > > think we should remove the related code yet. Might be on the roadmap, > > but > > > > most probably to soon to do that. I'm not +1 because that will > impact > > me > > > > ;) But can't be -1 (anyway, who cares, I'm not commiter ;) ) > > > > > > > > Just one question, that is this going to give us? Will that make > > anything > > > > faster to have 1.2 as the default version instead of 1.0? > > > > > > > > > > > > 2013/10/17 Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > +1, if the current default version of 1 we build against can't even > > be > > > > > downloaded except from the archives, that's not good. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Nick Dimiduk <[email protected] > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > +1 from me as well. Keep on moving forward. > > > > > > > > > > > > Does this mean we can delete some old API compatibility code > soon? > > I > > > <3 > > > > > > deleting code ;) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 11:09 AM, lars hofhansl < > [email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > So this is a resounding: "Maybe"? :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should change the default. HBase should be built > from > > > > source > > > > > > > for a specific version of Hadoop anyway. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ted said +1. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any other opinions? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Lars > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > > > From: Jean-Marc Spaggiari <[email protected]> > > > > > > > To: dev <[email protected]>; lars hofhansl < > [email protected]> > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 9, 2013 5:13 PM > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Default hadoop version for 0.94? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's on my roadmap, but lacking some time for that ;) I > bought > > a > > > > new > > > > > > > cluster where I will install Hadoop 1.2.1 or 2.x and replicate > my > > > > > current > > > > > > > cluster to it, but still need some time to do that :( > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But the issue is not just me. Me, I can deal with that. But > maybe > > > > > others > > > > > > > might be in the same situation? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2013/10/9 lars hofhansl <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's what I was trying to find out :) > > > > > > > >You do not want to upgrade to Hadoop 1.2.1? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >-- Lars > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >________________________________ > > > > > > > > From: Jean-Marc Spaggiari <[email protected]> > > > > > > > >To: dev <[email protected]>; lars hofhansl < > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > >Sent: Wednesday, October 9, 2013 4:04 PM > > > > > > > >Subject: Re: Default hadoop version for 0.94? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Hum. I usually just deploy the .jar on my cluster (hadoop > 1.0.3) > > > > > without > > > > > > > >rebuilding anything. Not sure if some others are not doing the > > > same. > > > > > > That > > > > > > > >change will break the compatibility with previous version, no? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >2013/10/9 lars hofhansl <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Should we default the HBase 0.94 builds to Hadoop 1.2.x > (1.2.1 > > > > > > > currently)? > > > > > > > >> It's the current stable release of the Hadoop. Can't even > > > download > > > > > > 1.0.4 > > > > > > > >> anymore unless you navigate to the archive section. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> This would just apply to the sample packages in the download > > > > section > > > > > > for > > > > > > > >> HBase. User should really build a targeted version of HBase > to > > > > their > > > > > > > >> version of Hadoop anyway. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> Comments? > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> -- Lars > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > > > - Andy > > > > > > > > > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet > > > Hein > > > > > (via Tom White) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
