[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-5223?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14529231#comment-14529231
]
Aaron T. Myers commented on HDFS-5223:
--------------------------------------
Hey Chris, thanks a lot for working on this.
Seems like this approach would certainly help with the downgrade/rollback
issue, but wouldn't do much to make the upgrade itself easier. In cases where
the only NN metadata change between versions is just the introduction of new
edit log op codes, I think it'd be much better if we could just swap the
software during a rolling restart without having to use the {{-rollingUpgrade}}
functionality at all, and then optionally enable the feature via an
administrative command afterward - essentially the "feature flags" proposal
earlier discussed. That approach will both make non-destructive downgrades
possible from versions which introduce new op codes, and make upgrades
substantially easier as well.
What's your reasoning for wanting to stick with a linear layout version number
approach when introducing new op codes? In general I think it'd be beneficial
for HDFS to move toward a bit-set denoting which features/op codes are
enabled/disabled, much like [~tlipcon] described earlier.
> Allow edit log/fsimage format changes without changing layout version
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HDFS-5223
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-5223
> Project: Hadoop HDFS
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: namenode
> Affects Versions: 2.1.1-beta
> Reporter: Aaron T. Myers
> Assignee: Colin Patrick McCabe
> Attachments: HDFS-5223-HDFS-Downgrade-Extended-Support.pdf,
> HDFS-5223.004.patch, HDFS-5223.005.patch
>
>
> Currently all HDFS on-disk formats are version by the single layout version.
> This means that even for changes which might be backward compatible, like the
> addition of a new edit log op code, we must go through the full `namenode
> -upgrade' process which requires coordination with DNs, etc. HDFS should
> support a lighter weight alternative.
> Copied description from HDFS-8075 which is a duplicate and now closed. (by
> sanjay on APril 7 2015)
> Background
> * HDFS image layout was changed to use Protobufs to allow easier forward and
> backward compatibility.
> * Hdfs has a layout version which is changed on each change (even if it an
> optional protobuf field was added).
> * Hadoop supports two ways of going back during an upgrade:
> ** downgrade: go back to old binary version but use existing image/edits so
> that newly created files are not lost
> ** rollback: go back to "checkpoint" created before upgrade was started -
> hence newly created files are lost.
> Layout needs to be revisited if we want to support downgrade is some
> circumstances which we dont today. Here are use cases:
> * Some changes can support downgrade even though they was a change in layout
> since there is not real data loss but only loss of new functionality. E.g.
> when we added ACLs one could have downgraded - there is no data loss but you
> will lose the newly created ACLs. That is acceptable for a user since one
> does not expect to retain the newly added ACLs in an old version.
> * Some changes may lead to data-loss if the functionality was used. For
> example, the recent truncate will cause data loss if the functionality was
> actually used. Now one can tell admins NOT use such new such new features
> till the upgrade is finalized in which case one could potentially support
> downgrade.
> * A fairly fundamental change to layout where a downgrade is not possible but
> a rollback is. Say we change the layout completely from protobuf to something
> else. Another example is when HDFS moves to support partial namespace in
> memory - they is likely to be a fairly fundamental change in layout.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
