On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 9:06 PM, Yu Li <[email protected]> wrote: > Sorry for the late response boss. We're still on 1.1 and have been keeping > a close watch on 2.0 progress (silently though, sorry about this, occupied > by singles day). If 1.2 could rolling upgrade to 2.0, anything special that > prevents 1.1 to (could you please refer me to some JIRA)? Thanks. > > Don't know. Will shout if I find anything. Will try it soon (next week or so).
> Rolling upgrade is a must-have for us when choosing the next version, and > since we have already backported the offheap work, 2.0 would be the first > choice for us than 1.4 (to avoid the pain of another round patch porting) > (smile) > > Good to know. Going to an intermediate version would be a PITA for you I'm sure. St.Ack > Best Regards, > Yu > > On 9 November 2017 at 14:08, Stack <[email protected]> wrote: > > > FYI, I'm resolving HBASE-13631 "Migration from 0.94 to 2.0.0" because of > > the discussion here on this thread. > > > > Sounds like 1.2 is minimum but lets try and see if we can go from 0.98. > > > > Thanks, > > S > > > > On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 9:41 PM, Stack <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 6:19 PM, Guanghao Zhang <[email protected]> > > 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 <[email protected]>: > > >> > > >> > On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 9:01 PM, Guanghao Zhang <[email protected]> > > >> 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 <[email protected]>: > > >> > > > > >> > > > 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 < > > >> [email protected] > > >> > > > > >> > > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > +1 for having the minimum (supported) hbase1 version be 1.2.x. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 5:30 PM, Stack <[email protected]> > 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 > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
