About compatibility, there is one incompatible change about the replication TableCFs' config. The old config is a string and it concatenate the list of tables and column families in format "table1:cf1,cf2;table2:cfA,cfB" in zookeeper for table-cf to replication peer mapping. When parse the config, it use ":" to split the string. If table name includes namespace, it will be wrong (See HBASE-11386 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-11386>). It is a problem since we support namespace (0.98). So HBASE-11393 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-11393> (and HBASE-16653 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-16653>) changed it to a PB object. When rolling update cluster, you need rolling master first. And the master will try to translate the string config to a PB object. But there are two problems. 1. Permission problem. The replication client can write the zookeeper directly. So the znode may have different owner. And master may don't have the write permission for the znode. It maybe failed to translate old table-cfs string to new PB Object. See HBASE-16938 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-16938> 2. We usually keep compatibility between old client and new server. But the old replication client may write a string config to znode directly. Then the new server can't parse them.
PS: HBASE-11386 is a problem since 0.98. But there are not too many users report this problem. So it maybe not a big incompatible issue...... 2017-08-15 1:54 GMT+08:00 Stack <st...@duboce.net>: > Heads-up: > > I'm about to put up an hbase-2.0.0-alpha2 Release Candidate. Theme is > updated dependencies, reliance on relocated popular libs (guava, netty, > protobuf), purge of checked-in generated src, and master-carries-no-regions > by default. > > alpha3 I hope will follow soon after (end-of-August?). Its theme will be > settling the APIs and compatibility (At first blush, we are not looking too > bad; our Sean ran some tests over weekend that have hbase-1 client running > against an hbase-2 cluster....). The Coprocessor Interface revamp should be > done by alpha3 (i.e. returning Interfaces rather than Implementations, and > our shutdown of CPs accessing classes in hbase marked InterfaceAudience). > We'll also have purged thirdparty classes from our API; e.g. guava 0.12 > Service showing through in our replication API and protobufs in Admin > Interface. On alpha3, we will have to do a bunch of outreach to make sure > our downstreamers are up on what is coming down the pipe. > > Beta1 in mid-September? > > I encourage you to check out the items marked for hbase2: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/HBASE/versions/12327188 Edit as > you > see appropriate. Punt if you know the JIRA will not get any attention in > next month or so. > > A bunch of issues marked blocker are unassigned. I'll leave them as is > another while but I'll boot them soon. > > While I have your attention: > > + I think we should leave thrift version at 0.9.3. Moving hbase thrift to > 0.10.0 will break existing clients. The change is easy enough if folks need > to upgrade their hbase thrift. See HBASE-18591. > + Upgrade from 0.94 is disallowed. You have to get to 1.0 first (0.98?). > > St.Ack > > > > On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 9:43 AM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 2:06 PM, Josh Elser <els...@apache.org> wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> On 7/31/17 9:00 AM, Stack wrote: > >> > >>> On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 12:25 PM, Josh Elser<els...@apache.org> > wrote: > >>> > >>> ... > >>>> > >>>> I like the idea of this also hitting 2.0 as it would make the feature > a > >>>> bit more "real", but am obviously a little nervous (I have no reason > to > >>>> be > >>>> nervous though). I am pretty happy with the feature in terms of how > >>>> much it > >>>> is covered via testing. > >>>> > >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-17748 > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Sounds good to me. Whats involved? Backport? If so, +1 Josh. > >>> > >>> Last think on space quota says that need doc too. See 'Space Quota' in > >>> here: > >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WCsVlnHjJeKUcl7wHwqb4z9i > >>> Eu_ktczrlKHK8N4SZzs/edit#heading=h.wuw3a6jukzo5 > >>> Does this little section need an update Josh? > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> S > >>> > >> > >> Yep, just a couple of cherry-picks. Good test coverage and some docs > >> already included for 17748. Happy to put that on my plate if you're > good > >> with it. I can reasonably assume that no one is against it :) > >> > >> I think I had knocked out docs for the "phase 1" stuff before we merged > >> it in from the original feature branch. I'll double check and update the > >> gdoc. Perhaps this was just a timing thing. > >> > > > > Thanks Josh, > > S > > >
