That is correct. But we are confident with the new durability changes and
other things 0.90 will be safer and faster than 0.20.6.
On Oct 11, 2010 4:51 PM, "Sean Bigdatafun"
wrote:
> Thanks for clarifying this.
>
> But on the other hand, wow... that means that even I like the consistency
> enhance
Thanks for clarifying this.
But on the other hand, wow... that means that even I like the consistency
enhancement in 0.90, I can not enjoy it if I have started using HBase 0.20
on a production?
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 10:49 PM, Stack wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 10:22 PM, Todd Lipcon w
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 10:22 PM, Todd Lipcon wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 8:51 PM, Stack wrote:
> What about region ID naming changes? I don't think the new region IDs would
> work in 0.20.
>
True.
So no going back from a 0.89+ to a 0.20 because format of region names
in filesystem has cha
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 8:51 PM, Stack wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 3:59 PM, Vidhyashankar Venkataraman
> wrote:
> > Hi
> > Can someone explain (or refer me to a twiki which explains) which
> versions of Hbase can be safely rolled back i.e., without any changes to the
> underlying database
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 3:59 PM, Vidhyashankar Venkataraman
wrote:
> Hi
> Can someone explain (or refer me to a twiki which explains) which versions
> of Hbase can be safely rolled back i.e., without any changes to the
> underlying database and state?
>
You cannot rollback without cluster rest
Hi
Can someone explain (or refer me to a twiki which explains) which versions of
Hbase can be safely rolled back i.e., without any changes to the underlying
database and state?
Thank you
Vidhya
