On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 10:24 AM, John Vines <vi...@apache.org> wrote:
> That is my issue with Keith. Requiring a double dot upgrade to do a single > dot upgrade is a pretty big break in our operating procedure up until this > point. > > How do we ensure people don't go to 1.7.0 straight from 1.6.1 and earlier > versions? > Christopher and I disuccsed this yesterday. After 1.6.2 does its thing, could put a special marker in zookeeper. 1.7.0 upgrade would not start until it see this. > > > On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 10:03 AM, Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 3:33 AM, Mike Drob <mad...@cloudera.com> wrote: > > > > > I do not want to see anything get re-written between a 1.6.1 system > going > > > down and a 1.6.2 system coming up. We have a wire compatibility promise > > > amongst the double-dot releases, and parts moving around really make me > > > nervous. I think it's just too big of a change. > > > > > > > One thing thats really screwy about the proposal to do this in 1.6.2 (and > > completely drop support for relative paths in 1.7.0), is that you have to > > run 1.6.2 before you can upgrade to 1.7.0. This is something > > Christopher pointed out in an offline discussion yesterday. Is this the > > concern you had? This may be the biggest reason not to do it. I think > in > > practice most production users will end up on later bug fix versions of > > 1.6.0 anyway. No one runs 1.4.0 or 1.4.1 anymore. But not sure if we > can > > count on that. If 1.6.1 is stable and works for a user, they may just > > stick with it. > > > > > > > > > > I have no problem with rewriting anything in the internals between > 1.6.x > > > and 1.7.0 (or 2.0.0). Based on experience, it will be a lot harder to > > > implement as a stand-alone utility, but I do not have strong > preferences > > on > > > stand-alone or part of the upgrade process. > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 8:37 PM, Josh Elser <josh.el...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > On 7/22/14, 12:51 PM, Keith Turner wrote: > > > > > > > >> Had some discussion w/ Dave Marion about the need to drop relatavie > > > paths > > > >> from internal metadata. From a user standpoint the requirement to > > > >> possibly > > > >> configure instance.dfs.uri and instance.dfs.dir if they might have > > > >> relative > > > >> paths is confusing over the long term. Also it places more of a > > > >> maintenance burden on us if we need to ensure all bug fixes and new > > > >> features work properly w/ relative paths. > > > >> > > > > > > > > Assuming that we squash relative paths by 1.7.0, we shouldn't have > any > > > > additional burden on new feature work because there should be no new > > > > features in 1.6. Bug fixes are still potentially more complex. > > > > > > > > I think everyone would agree that 1.6.0 should've nuked relative > paths > > > > (I'm sorry if I squash anyone's opinions, but that was the > impression I > > > got > > > > before 1.6.0 came out). I think trying to eradicate them in 1.6 would > > > just > > > > add even more confusion to an already sufficiently confusing > situation. > > > If > > > > a sufficiently simple approach came be thought of for a 1.6.x, I > would > > be > > > > open to hear it. > > > > > > > > > > > > What are our options and what should the timeline be? We could > > require > > > >> the > > > >> user to do something to remove all relative paths before before > > starting > > > >> 1.7.0 for example. > > > >> > > > >> Some of the things we discussed > > > >> > > > >> * Provide a utility to rewrite all relative paths > > > >> * Rework the volume replacement code to work w/ relative paths > > > >> > > > >> A stand alone utility is tricky. Don't want to modify tablet > metadata > > > if > > > >> the table is loaded. Thats why the volume replacement code has the > > > >> tablets > > > >> themselves do the replacement. > > > >> > > > > > > > > I think I like the idea of writing a standalone utility as, while the > > > > "safe" conditions to run such a utility are harder, getting the > rewrite > > > > correct is much easier. Didn't Sean already write some sort of check > > for > > > an > > > > "is Accumulo off" environment? > > > > > > > > > > > > I like the idea of reworking the volume replacement code, but I do > not > > > >> like > > > >> the idea of it happening automatically (like the first time 1.6.2 is > > > >> started). Could possibly have a boolean config > > > >> instance.volume.replaceRelative. When this is set, as tablets are > > > loaded > > > >> and when the GC starts relative paths would be replaced using > current > > > >> instance.dfs.* config or hdfs config. > > > >> > > > >> Still uncertain about the best solution. Looking for the course of > > > least > > > >> user confusion and least maintenance. I think > > > >> instance.volume.replaceRelative is a bit confusing from a user > > > >> perspective. > > > >> > > > >> What other options are there to solve this problem? Any issue w/ > the > > > >> premise? > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >
