ES should be upgradeable without wiping.  It's the client itself that isn't
backwards compatible.  It'll require both an upgrade of Metron and an ES
cluster.

On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 1:05 PM, Casey Stella <[email protected]> wrote:

> So, how would this work in an upgrade scenario that does not involve losing
> the existing indexed data?
>
> On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 12:55 PM, Michael Miklavcic <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
> > The client I'm currently working on moving towards would *not* be
> backwards
> > compatible.
> > https://www.elastic.co/guide/en/elasticsearch/client/java-
> > rest/current/java-rest-high-compatibility.html
> >
> > "
> > The High Level Client is guaranteed to be able to communicate with any
> > Elasticsearch node running on the same major version and greater or equal
> > minor version. It doesn’t need to be in the same minor version as the
> > Elasticsearch nodes it communicates with, as it is forward compatible
> > meaning that it supports communicating with later versions of
> Elasticsearch
> > than the one it was developed for.
> >
> > The 5.6 client can communicate with any 5.6.x Elasticsearch node.
> Previous
> > 5.x minor versions like 5.5.x, 5.4.x etc. are not (fully) supported.
> > "
> >
> > Best,
> > Mike
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Simon Elliston Ball <
> > [email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > A number of people are currently working on upgrading the ES support in
> > > Metron to 5.x (including the clients, and the mpack managed install).
> > >
> > > Would anyone have any objections to dropping formal support for 2.x as
> a
> > > result of this work? In theory the clients should be backward
> compatible
> > > against older data stores, so metron could be upgraded without needing
> an
> > > elastic upgrade.
> > >
> > > In practice, we would need to do pretty extensive testing and I
> wouldn’t
> > > want us to have to code around long term support on older clients if
> > no-one
> > > in the community cares enough about the older ES. Do we think there is
> a
> > > case to be made for maintaining long term support for older clients?
> > >
> > > Simon
> >
>

Reply via email to