How so? If someone upgrades from another version and is using a different dir,
doesn't specify it in the configuration, and we assume /accumulo, then their
database won't start. The other option, which may be safer than making any
assumptions, is to make instance.volumes a required parameter with no defaults.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher" <ctubb...@apache.org>
To: "Accumulo Dev List" <dev@accumulo.apache.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 11:51:39 PM
Subject: Re: Planning for (eventual) removal of instance.dfs.{uri,dir}
The URI is probably reasonable, but the dir is potentially problematic if
you weren't using the default.
--
Christopher L Tubbs II
http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 10:03 PM, dlmarion <dlmar...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Looks like VolumeConfiguration falls back to fs.defaultFS for the uri and
> /accumulo for the dir. You could remove both properties and still keep this
> as the documented default behavior if instance.volumes is not specified.
>
>
>
> <div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Christopher <
> ctubb...@apache.org> </div><div>Date:12/10/2014 9:13 PM (GMT-05:00)
> </div><div>To: Accumulo Dev List <dev@accumulo.apache.org>
> </div><div>Cc: </div><div>Subject: Re: Planning for (eventual) removal of
> instance.dfs.{uri,dir} </div><div>
> </div>My ACCUMULO-2589 branch in github (
> https://github.com/ctubbsii/accumulo/tree/ACCUMULO-2589) does have a
> commit
> that drops a bunch of stuff (which may or may not be accepted as is for
> 2.0). The instance.dfs.{uri,dir} properties aren't so easy and require more
> planning, because it's not just removing a property... it's also dealing
> with updating internal data by making relative paths absolute.
>
> For what it's worth, I'm also looking at what changes if we drop Hadoop 1
> support.
>
> As for the validation of config, I think we do a sanity check on startup
> already, which we can always extend. Doesn't solve this issue, though.
>
>
> --
> Christopher L Tubbs II
> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>
> On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 8:59 PM, dlmarion <dlmar...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > We should schedule a bunch of deprecated things for removal in 2.0 to
> ease
> > maintenance. Do we have a way to validate the site.xml and zookeeper
> > settings before startup and fail with appropriate error message.
> >
> >
> >
> > <div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Christopher <
> > ctubb...@apache.org> </div><div>Date:12/10/2014 8:44 PM (GMT-05:00)
> > </div><div>To: Accumulo Dev List <dev@accumulo.apache.org>
> > </div><div>Cc: </div><div>Subject: Planning for (eventual) removal of
> > instance.dfs.{uri,dir} </div><div>
> > </div>So,
> >
> > instance.volumes replaces instance.dfs.uri and instance.dfs.dir in 1.6.
> > But, what's our long-term plan for these? I ask, because we still have
> > internal code that uses instance.dfs.uri to resolve relative paths.
> >
> > Should we force these to be re-written at some point (maybe on upgrade to
> > 1.7)? Should we continue to support the deprecated properties
> indefinitely
> > and continue the lazy re-write-on-compact? Do we transition by requiring
> > instance.volumes to specify the volumes, and only use the old properties
> to
> > resolve relative paths?
> >
> > My personal view is that we should provide an upgrade-prep/check tool
> prior
> > to upgrade to 2.0, which checks and/or re-writes paths and verifies that
> > instance.volumes is set.
> >
> > Does anybody have a different opinion on this?
> >
> > --
> > Christopher L Tubbs II
> > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
> >
>
