On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 6:19 PM, Guanghao Zhang <zghao...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Our internal branch is based on 0.98. And we plan rolling to 2.0. So I will > take a try for rolling from 0.98 to 2.0. But we take a lot backport to our > internal branch, like async client, netty rpc client, serial replication, > throttling, some replication improvements and so on. So our rolling > experience may not apply to community totally. I will post our rolling > experience (which can apply to community 0.98 branch) after we rolling to > 2.0 :-). > > Let me try going from 0.98 then and see what is broke. Would be good if you fellows could do one step rather than two. S > 2017-11-05 2:41 GMT+08:00 Stack <st...@duboce.net>: > > > On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 9:01 PM, Guanghao Zhang <zghao...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > Can we rolling from 0.98 and 1.1 to 1.2? If this rolling is ok, user > can > > > rolling to 2.0 by two steps, 0.98 to 1.2, then 1.2 to 2.0. > > > > > > > > Yes. They could do that. Would be a pain. Might be able to go from 0.98 > to > > 2.0 though... I've not tried it. > > St.Ack > > > > > > > > > > > 2017-11-04 11:25 GMT+08:00 Nick Dimiduk <ndimi...@gmail.com>: > > > > > > > 1.2 is good, but are we aware of anything that precludes 1.1? 0.98? > On > > > disk > > > > compatibility (HFile, WAL, AMv2) should be the limiting factor here, > > > right? > > > > Wire protocols have been compatible all the while... > > > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 5:56 PM Zach York < > zyork.contribut...@gmail.com > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > +1 for having the minimum (supported) hbase1 version be 1.2.x. > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 5:30 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Over in the adjacent "[DISCUSS] hbase-2.0.0 compatibility > > > expectations" > > > > > > thread, we chatted some on what would be the minimum hbase-1.x > > > version > > > > > from > > > > > > which you can upgrade to hbase-2. > > > > > > > > > > > > The last statement made on this topic by Sean was that only > > upgrades > > > > from > > > > > > 1.2.x, our current stable offering, or later should be supported. > > > > > > > > > > > > There was no dissent. > > > > > > > > > > > > We all good w/ this? Speak up if you disagree else 1.2.x becomes > > the > > > > > > 'official' minimum. > > > > > > > > > > > > NOTES: > > > > > > > > > > > > + We need to agree on a minimum so we know what migrations to > test. > > > > > > + It might be possible to upgrade from versions before 1.2.x but > we > > > (or > > > > > at > > > > > > least I -- smile) won't have tried it or run verifications to > > ensure > > > > all > > > > > > made it over (let us know if you successfully migrate from a > > baseline > > > > > that > > > > > > precedes 1.2). > > > > > > + Hopefully we can avoid requiring Users move to the latest on > the > > > 1.2 > > > > > > branch. This shouldn't be necessary doing a stop/start upgrade. > It > > > > might > > > > > be > > > > > > needed doing a rolling upgrade. Lets see. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > St.Ack > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
