Well, no, the database will start if we rely on instance.volumes, but we may be unable to find files that have relative paths, if we incorrectly assume /accumulo. Making it required is annoying if users don't have relative paths.
-- Christopher L Tubbs II http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 8:15 AM, <dlmar...@comcast.net> wrote: > 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 > > > > > > >
