[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21072?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16590419#comment-16590419 ]
Reid Chan commented on HBASE-21072: ----------------------------------- *{color:green}+1{color}* for v3. Let QA take care the rest. > Block out HBCK1 in hbase2 > ------------------------- > > Key: HBASE-21072 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21072 > Project: HBase > Issue Type: Sub-task > Components: hbck > Affects Versions: 2.0.1 > Reporter: stack > Assignee: stack > Priority: Major > Attachments: HBASE-21072.branch-2.0.001.patch, > HBASE-21072.branch-2.0.002.patch, HBASE-21072.branch-2.0.003.patch > > > [~busbey] left a note in the parent issue that I only just read which has a > prescription for how we might block hbck1 from running against an hbase-2.x > (hbck1 could damage a hbase-2....Its disabled in hbase-2 but an errant hbck1 > from an hbase-1.x install might run). > Here is quote from parent issue: > {code} > I was idly thinking about how to stop HBase v1 HBCK. Thanks to HBASE-11405, > we know that all HBase 1.y.z hbck instances should refuse to run if there's a > lock file at '/hbase/hbase-hbck.lock' (given defaults). How about HBase v2 > places that file permanently in place and replace the contents (usually just > an IP address) with a note about how you must not run HBase v1 HBCK against > the cluster? > {code} > There is also the below: > {code} > We could pick another location for locking on HBase version 2 and start > building in a version check of some kind? > {code} > ... to which I'd answer, lets see. hbck2 is a different beast. It asks the > master to do stuff. It doesn't do it itself, as hbck1 did. So no need of a > lock/version. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)