The main thing is that I would not want to see an ACCUMULO-1790
*without* ACCUMULO-1795. Having 1792 alone would be insufficient for
me.
--
Christopher L Tubbs II
http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 9:22 AM, Sean Busbey bus...@clouderagovt.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 4:49 PM, Sean Busbey busbey...@clouderagovt.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 3:14 PM, William Slacum
wilhelm.von.cl...@accumulo.net wrote:
The language of ACCUMULO-1795 indicated that an acceptable state was
something that wasn't binary compatible. That's my #1
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 6:27 PM, Christopher ctubb...@apache.org wrote:
The main thing is that I would not want to see an ACCUMULO-1790
*without* ACCUMULO-1795. Having 1792 alone would be insufficient for
me.
That is precisely the intention of ACCUMULO-1790. All of the subtasks
(including
Nope, I think we're on the same page now.
--
Christopher L Tubbs II
http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 7:39 PM, Sean Busbey busbey...@clouderagovt.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 6:27 PM, Christopher ctubb...@apache.org wrote:
The main thing is that I would not want to
Based on recent feedback on ACCUMULO-1792 and ACCUMULO-1795, I want to
resurrect this thread to make sure everyone's concerns are addressed.
For context, here's a link to the start of the last thread:
http://bit.ly/1aPqKuH
From ACCUMULO-1792, ctubbsii:
I'd be reluctant to support any
A user of 1.4.a should be able to move to 1.4.b without any major
infrastructure changes, such as swapping out HDFS or installing extra
add-ons.
I don't find much merit in debating local WAL vs HDFS WAL cost/benefit
since the only quantifiable evidence we have supported the move.
I should note,
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 1:12 PM, Josh Elser josh.el...@gmail.com wrote:
To me, it seems like the argument may be coming down to whether or not we
break 0.20 hadoop compatibility on a bug-fix release and how concerned we
are about letting users lag behind the upstream development.
I think
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 1:28 PM, William Slacum
wilhelm.von.cl...@accumulo.net wrote:
A user of 1.4.a should be able to move to 1.4.b without any major
infrastructure changes, such as swapping out HDFS or installing extra
add-ons.
Right, exactly. Hopefully no part of the original plan
On 11/12/13, 12:24 PM, Sean Busbey wrote:
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 1:12 PM, Josh Elser josh.el...@gmail.com wrote:
To me, it seems like the argument may be coming down to whether or not we
break 0.20 hadoop compatibility on a bug-fix release and how concerned we
are about letting users lag
The language of ACCUMULO-1795 indicated that an acceptable state was
something that wasn't binary compatible. That's my #1 thing to avoid.
Maybe expressly only doing a binary convenience package for
0.20.203.0?
If we need an extra package, doesn't that mean a user can't just upgrade
Accumulo?
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 2:48 PM, Josh Elser josh.el...@gmail.com wrote:
What about the other half: encouraging users to lag (soon to be) two
major releases behind?
I don't think our current user base needs to be encouraged strongly to
upgrade. And as I said previously I think this change
To: dev@accumulo.apache.org
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2013 11:57:40 PM
Subject: Re: Hadoop 2.0 Support for Accumulo 1.4 Branch
Thanks for the note, Ted. That vote is for 2.2.0, not -beta.
On Oct 14, 2013 7:30 PM, Ted Yu yuzhih...@gmail.com wrote:
w.r.t. hadoop-2 release, see this thread
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 7:16 AM, dlmar...@comcast.net wrote:
Just to be clear, we are talking about adding profile support to the pom's
for Hadoop 2.2.0 for a 1.4.5 and 1.5.1 release, correct? We are not talking
about changing the default build profile for these branches are we?
for
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Sean Busbey bus...@cloudera.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 7:16 AM, dlmar...@comcast.net wrote:
Just to be clear, we are talking about adding profile support to the
pom's for Hadoop 2.2.0 for a 1.4.5 and 1.5.1 release, correct? We are not
talking about
I think you meant:
Ugh, Hadoop versions.[1]
[1]
http://blog.cloudera.com/blog/2012/04/apache-hadoop-versions-looking-ahead-3/
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 11:20 AM, Sean Busbey bus...@cloudera.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Sean Busbey bus...@cloudera.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 15,
Responses Inline.
- Mike
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 12:55 PM, Sean Busbey bus...@cloudera.com wrote:
Hey All,
I'd like to restart the conversation from end July / start August about
Hadoop 2 support on the 1.4 branch.
Specifically, I'd like to get some requirements ironed out so I can file
For #2, from what I've read, we should definitely bump up the dependency
on 1.5.1-SNAPSHOT to 2.1.0-beta, and, given what Ted replied with, to
2.2.0-beta for that hadoop-2 profile.
I probably stated this before, but I'd much rather see more effort in
testing Accumulo 1.5.x (and 1.6.0 as that
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 9:24 PM, Mike Drob md...@mdrob.com wrote:
3) Test for correctness on given versions, with = 5 node cluster
* Unit Tests
* Functional Tests
* 24hr continuous + verification
* 24hr continuous + verification + agitation
* 24hr random walk
* 24hr random walk +
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 10:02 PM, Josh Elser josh.el...@gmail.com wrote:
For #2, from what I've read, we should definitely bump up the dependency
on 1.5.1-SNAPSHOT to 2.1.0-beta, and, given what Ted replied with, to
2.2.0-beta for that hadoop-2 profile.
so 1.5.1-SNAPSHOT and this proposed
Thanks for the note, Ted. That vote is for 2.2.0, not -beta.
On Oct 14, 2013 7:30 PM, Ted Yu yuzhih...@gmail.com wrote:
w.r.t. hadoop-2 release, see this thread:
http://search-hadoop.com/m/YSTny19y1Ha1/hadoop+2.2.0
Looks like 2.2.0-beta would pass votes.
Cheers
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at
, Dave Marion dlmar...@comcast.net wrote:
Any update?
-Original Message-
From: Joey Echeverria [mailto:j...@cloudera.com]
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 1:24 PM
To: dev@accumulo.apache.org
Subject: Re: Hadoop 2.0 Support for Accumulo 1.4 Branch
We're testing this today. I'll report
PM, Dave Marion dlmar...@comcast.net wrote:
Any update?
-Original Message-
From: Joey Echeverria [mailto:j...@cloudera.com]
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 1:24 PM
To: dev@accumulo.apache.org
Subject: Re: Hadoop 2.0 Support for Accumulo 1.4 Branch
We're testing this today. I'll report
...@cloudera.com]
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 1:24 PM
To: dev@accumulo.apache.org
Subject: Re: Hadoop 2.0 Support for Accumulo 1.4 Branch
We're testing this today. I'll report back what we find.
-Joey
—
Sent from Mailbox for iPhone
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 3:34 PM, null dlmar
Message -
From: Billie Rinaldi billie.rina...@gmail.com
To: dev@accumulo.apache.org
Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 3:02:41 PM
Subject: Re: Hadoop 2.0 Support for Accumulo 1.4 Branch On Fri, Jul
26, 2013 at 11:33 AM, Joey Echeverria j...@cloudera.com wrote:
If these patches are going
Any update?
-Original Message-
From: Joey Echeverria [mailto:j...@cloudera.com]
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 1:24 PM
To: dev@accumulo.apache.org
Subject: Re: Hadoop 2.0 Support for Accumulo 1.4 Branch
We're testing this today. I'll report back what we find.
-Joey
—
Sent from Mailbox
billie.rina...@gmail.com
To: dev@accumulo.apache.org
Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 3:02:41 PM
Subject: Re: Hadoop 2.0 Support for Accumulo 1.4 Branch
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 11:33 AM, Joey Echeverria j...@cloudera.com wrote:
If these patches are going to be included with 1.4.4 or 1.4.5, I would
My question is if the community would be interested in us pulling those
back ports upstream?
Yes, please.
We have both the unit tests and the full system test suite hooked up to a
Jenkins build server.
There are still a couple of tests that fail periodically with the full
system test due to timeouts. We're working on those which is why our
current release is just a beta.
There are no API changes or
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Joey Echeverria j...@cloudera.com wrote:
We have both the unit tests and the full system test suite hooked up to a
Jenkins build server.
If these patches are going to be included with 1.4.4 or 1.4.5, I would like
to see the following test run using CDH4 on at
If these patches are going to be included with 1.4.4 or 1.4.5, I would like
to see the following test run using CDH4 on at least a 5 node cluster.
More nodes would be better.
* unit test
* Functional test
* 24 hr Continuous ingest + verification
* 24 hr Continuous ingest +
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 11:33 AM, Joey Echeverria j...@cloudera.com wrote:
If these patches are going to be included with 1.4.4 or 1.4.5, I would
like
to see the following test run using CDH4 on at least a 5 node cluster.
More nodes would be better.
* unit test
* Functional test
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 2:33 PM, Joey Echeverria j...@cloudera.com wrote:
If these patches are going to be included with 1.4.4 or 1.4.5, I would
like
to see the following test run using CDH4 on at least a 5 node cluster.
More nodes would be better.
* unit test
* Functional test
Will 1.4 still work with 0.20 with these patches?
Great point Billie.
- Original Message -
From: Billie Rinaldi billie.rina...@gmail.com
To: dev@accumulo.apache.org
Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 3:02:41 PM
Subject: Re: Hadoop 2.0 Support for Accumulo 1.4 Branch
On Fri, Jul
33 matches
Mail list logo
