Building Apache Accumulo on top of Apache Hadoop 2.2

Is it possible to build and run the current Apache Accumulo 1.6.0-snapshot code base on top of Hadoop 2.2.0 recently released? Does anyone try it? I will appreciate your feedback -- Regards, Pierre

Re: Building Apache Accumulo on top of Apache Hadoop 2.2

The current master branch builds against 2.2.0 by default. -- Christopher L Tubbs II http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 4:48 AM, Pierre Kande wrote: > Is it possible to build and run the current Apache Accumulo 1.6.0-snapshot > code base on top of Hadoop 2.2.0 recently release

Re: Review Request 14972: ACCUMULO-1009 - add use of SSL for thrift comms

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/14972/ --- (Updated Oct. 31, 2013, 2:35 p.m.) Review request for accumulo and Michael Berm

Re: RBT/ReviewBoard/post-review

I've got it working. I just filed a ticket yesterday to fix the repo's definition in RB, because I was getting that error message about the repo not being known. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-6948 My origin is set to https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/accumulo.git. I have RBTo

Re: Review Request 15096: ACCUMULO-1829 Add timeout scaling factor to tests (1.4.x)

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/15096/#review27900 --- test/system/auto/run.py

Re: Review Request 14880: ACCUMULO-1785 Alter config.sh to optionally just verify environment instead of making changes

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/14880/#review27904 --- Looks fine to me given Keith and Christopher's comments. - Josh Els

Re: Review Request 15096: ACCUMULO-1829 Add timeout scaling factor to tests (1.4.x)

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/15096/#review27905 --- Ship it! Looks good to me. One way or the other, lets make sure a R

Re: Review Request 15096: ACCUMULO-1829 Add timeout scaling factor to tests (1.4.x)

> On Oct. 31, 2013, 11:35 a.m., Sean Busbey wrote: > > test/system/auto/run.py, line 246 > > > > > > There's no update to the README explaining the additional option (which > > I realize the original didn't do either)

Re: Review Request 15002: ACCUMULO-1307 - adds flag to prompt fate threads to end

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/15002/#review27908 --- Ship it! It's better than what's currently in there. I'd say ship t

Re: Review Request 14995: ACCUMULO-1679 - Purges TFile by rolling the two static calls into BCFile

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/14995/#review27910 --- Ship it! Seems simple enough. I'd be ok with leaving the tfile para

unsubsribe

Re: unsubsribe

You probably meant to email dev-unsubscr...@accumulo.apache.org On 10/31/13, 12:45 PM, Kumarasiri, Nuwan R wrote:

1.6.0 Feature Freeze

I've been going through the tickets (and hopefully not stepping on too many toes) for scoping things into 1.6 as we approach the deadline. However, looking through the tickets, there seem to be 4 major tasks that have SOME amount of work ahead of them to work in a release. To me, these are: https:

Re: RBT/ReviewBoard/post-review

'rbt status' still doesn't work... I'll try post-review sometime. -- Christopher L Tubbs II http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Bill Havanki wrote: > I've got it working. I just filed a ticket yesterday to fix the repo's > definition in RB, because I was getting that

Re: RBT/ReviewBoard/post-review

I get that same error for 'rbt status', but post-review still works. (And despite the error message, I do get a listing with the one open review I have.) On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 1:20 PM, Christopher wrote: > 'rbt status' still doesn't work... I'll try post-review sometime. > > -- > Christopher

Re: 1.6.0 Feature Freeze

I think a week extension would be good for projects that are under review, but I don't think it should be extended for development on those features (except to address issues from the review). This would also encourage people to push something potentially disruptive to ReviewBoard instead of commit

Re: 1.6.0 Feature Freeze

On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 12:02 PM, John Vines wrote: > > So, I am proposing maintaining the feature freeze of Friday at midnight > that we maintained before, EXCEPT for any thing regarding these 4-5 > features I've enumerated. I think an additional week should be sufficient > for these features to

Re: 1.6.0 Feature Freeze

On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 12:37 PM, Christopher wrote: > I think a week extension would be good for projects that are under > review, but I don't think it should be extended for development on > those features (except to address issues from the review). This would > also encourage people to push so

Re: 1.6.0 Feature Freeze

On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 1:39 PM, Sean Busbey wrote: > On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 12:02 PM, John Vines wrote: > >> >> So, I am proposing maintaining the feature freeze of Friday at midnight >> that we maintained before, EXCEPT for any thing regarding these 4-5 >> features I've enumerated. I think an

Re: 1.6.0 Feature Freeze

I'm fine with the idea of what you're proposing. I'll hold off on an actual vote until the details are resolved (Christopher's and Sean's responses) On 10/31/13, 1:02 PM, John Vines wrote: I've been going through the tickets (and hopefully not stepping on too many toes) for scoping things into

Re: Review Request 15096: ACCUMULO-1829 Add timeout scaling factor to tests (1.4.x)

> On Oct. 31, 2013, 12:11 p.m., Josh Elser wrote: > > Looks good to me. One way or the other, lets make sure a README update > > happens like Sean suggests. Thanks Josh! - Bill --- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, v

Re: Review Request 15096: ACCUMULO-1829 Add timeout scaling factor to tests (1.4.x)

> On Oct. 31, 2013, 3:35 p.m., Sean Busbey wrote: > > test/system/auto/run.py, line 246 > > > > > > There's no update to the README explaining the additional option (which > > I realize the original didn't do either).

Re: Review Request 15096: ACCUMULO-1829 Add timeout scaling factor to tests (1.4.x)

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/15096/#review27924 --- Ship it! Ship It! - Sean Busbey On Oct. 30, 2013, 2:26 p.m., Bil

Re: 1.6.0 Feature Freeze

On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Josh Elser wrote: > I'm fine with the idea of what you're proposing. I'll hold off on an > actual vote until the details are resolved (Christopher's and Sean's > responses) > > Also, if we re-do calling the vote, I'd ask that we name John Vines the release manage

Root table's tablet assignment failure on startup

I'm not sure if I did something bad the last time I stopped my 1.6.0 instance, but I figure I'll mention it here first. Started up a 1.6.0 instance that I had before. Root table didn't come online because it couldn't load its tablet because the /accumulo/${instance_id}/root_tablet/dir node in

Re: Review Request 14972: ACCUMULO-1009 - add use of SSL for thrift comms

> On Oct. 29, 2013, 3:25 p.m., kturner wrote: > > core/src/main/java/org/apache/accumulo/core/client/ZooKeeperInstance.java, > > line 164 > > > > > > Probably do not need to add this method. I think most users connec

Re: 1.6.0 Feature Freeze

On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 2:02 PM, Sean Busbey wrote: > On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Josh Elser wrote: > > > I'm fine with the idea of what you're proposing. I'll hold off on an > > actual vote until the details are resolved (Christopher's and Sean's > > responses) > > > > > Also, if we re-do

Re: Review Request 14972: ACCUMULO-1009 - add use of SSL for thrift comms

> On Oct. 29, 2013, 3:25 p.m., kturner wrote: > > core/src/main/java/org/apache/accumulo/core/client/ZooKeeperInstance.java, > > line 102 > > > > > > I think I advocated somewhere for removing this method, because its

Re: Review Request 14972: ACCUMULO-1009 - add use of SSL for thrift comms

> On Oct. 29, 2013, 3:25 p.m., kturner wrote: > > core/src/main/java/org/apache/accumulo/core/client/ZooKeeperInstance.java, > > line 102 > > > > > > I think I advocated somewhere for removing this method, because its

Re: 1.6.0 Feature Freeze

On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Sean Busbey wrote: > On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 12:37 PM, Christopher wrote: > >> I think a week extension would be good for projects that are under >> review, but I don't think it should be extended for development on >> those features (except to address issues fr

Re: Review Request 14972: ACCUMULO-1009 - add use of SSL for thrift comms

> On Oct. 29, 2013, 3:25 p.m., kturner wrote: > > minicluster/src/main/java/org/apache/accumulo/minicluster/MiniAccumuloConfig.java, > > line 385 > > > > > > Mini is intended to be user facing and allow user to test t

Re: 1.6.0 Feature Freeze

On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 2:26 PM, Sean Busbey wrote: > On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Sean Busbey wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 12:37 PM, Christopher > wrote: > > > >> I think a week extension would be good for projects that are under > >> review, but I don't think it should be extende

Re: 1.6.0 Feature Freeze

On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 11:02 AM, Sean Busbey wrote: > On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Josh Elser wrote: > > > I'm fine with the idea of what you're proposing. I'll hold off on an > > actual vote until the details are resolved (Christopher's and Sean's > > responses) > > > > > Also, if we re-d

Re: Review Request 14972: ACCUMULO-1009 - add use of SSL for thrift comms

> On Oct. 29, 2013, 3:25 p.m., kturner wrote: > > minicluster/src/main/java/org/apache/accumulo/minicluster/MiniAccumuloConfig.java, > > line 385 > > > > > > Mini is intended to be user facing and allow user to test t

Re: 1.6.0 Feature Freeze

Yes, that's what I'm saying, because: 1 week (max) delay in pushing/merging is probably a better alternative for features mostly ready and waiting for feedback before a final yeah/nay, than somebody eagly pushing them to get them in before the deadline and having to revert them later because they

Re: Review Request 14972: ACCUMULO-1009 - add use of SSL for thrift comms

> On Oct. 29, 2013, 3:25 p.m., kturner wrote: > > core/src/main/java/org/apache/accumulo/core/conf/AccumuloConfiguration.java, > > line 161 > > > > > > there is also $ACCUMULO_CONF_DIR (not sure if I have the var name

Re: Root table's tablet assignment failure on startup

Its not a a problem, thats a result of fixing ACCUMULO-1766. On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Josh Elser wrote: > I'm not sure if I did something bad the last time I stopped my 1.6.0 > instance, but I figure I'll mention it here first. > > Started up a 1.6.0 instance that I had before. Root tab

Re: 1.6.0 Feature Freeze

On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 1:35 PM, John Vines wrote: > > > > So I am interpreting it as all code modifications must be into the codebase > or review board by the freeze date. Which could be beneifical, however- > 1. What about the case where a patch needs to be modified? What if it's a > really min

Re: 1.6.0 Feature Freeze

On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 4:39 PM, Sean Busbey wrote: > On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 1:35 PM, John Vines wrote: > > > > > > > > So I am interpreting it as all code modifications must be into the > codebase > > or review board by the freeze date. Which could be beneifical, however- > > 1. What about the

Re: 1.6.0 Feature Freeze

On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 3:45 PM, John Vines wrote: > > All of your comments make sense to me. Unfortunately we're a bit stuck in > the latter category. Going forward we can make steps as a community to help > prevent it, but that doesn't change this release. And beside issue of > pulling out an i

Review Request 15148: ACCUMULO-1458 - MR example using password token w/ Docs

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/15148/ --- Review request for accumulo. Repository: accumulo Description --- Sean's

Re: Root table's tablet assignment failure on startup

Cool. Thanks, Keith. On Oct 31, 2013 4:33 PM, "Keith Turner" wrote: > Its not a a problem, thats a result of fixing ACCUMULO-1766. > > > On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Josh Elser wrote: > > > I'm not sure if I did something bad the last time I stopped my 1.6.0 > > instance, but I figure I'll m

Re: 1.6.0 Feature Freeze

On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Sean Busbey wrote: > On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 3:45 PM, John Vines wrote: > > > > > All of your comments make sense to me. Unfortunately we're a bit stuck in > > the latter category. Going forward we can make steps as a community to > help > > prevent it, but that

Review Request 15157: ACCUMULO-803 Add Reverse Logical Time as a Time Type

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/15157/ --- Review request for accumulo and Drew Farris. Bugs: ACCUMULO-803 https://iss

Review Request 15166: ACCUMULO-802 Tablespaces

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/15166/ --- Review request for accumulo. Bugs: ACCUMULO-802 https://issues.apache.org/j

Fwd: git commit: ACCUMULO-1843 Use the correct name that Platform.getPlatform generates when building the native map library

Josh- I think you're fixing the wrong thing. What's broken isn't the filename... what's broken is the way we load the native library... A better way to do it is to set LD_LIBRARY_PATH or set -Djava.library.path and call System.load(), or we can call it explicitly by name. Either way, Platform.get