Hey St.Ack, What you have there currently seems accurate. So I don't think it needs to mention HBASE-3194 directly. Maybe add a note that we try to support Hadoop 0.20.x variants incorporating security features as well (CDH3B3 and Y! Hadoop 0.20.S)?
>From a user standpoint it does seem a bit complicated though and doesn't help the criticism that we have "too many moving parts". As a new user what I would really want to see is: 1) Go here and download this Hadoop tarball 2) Extract it and set it up according to the instructions here 3) Make these changes to your HBase config 4) Go! But that would be akin to naming a "preferred" Hadoop distribution for the project (we may all have our own preferences anyway), which doesn't seem like a place we're at yet. Maybe we could present 2 options there: #1: For those running Cloudera Hadoop, use CDH3B2+, and setup according to Cloudera instructions here... #2: Use ASF Hadoop 0.20-append, with instructions here... The problem is, we don't have an easy (or tested) version for #2. Which brings us back around to do we push for a 0.20-append release, etc. --gh On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 9:22 AM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote: > Gary (or anyone): > > Would you suggest I add to this, > > http://people.apache.org/~stack/hbase-0.90.0-candidate-1/docs/notsoquick.html#hadoop<http://people.apache.org/%7Estack/hbase-0.90.0-candidate-1/docs/notsoquick.html#hadoop> > , > our hadoop story for 0.90.0 going forward? Should I add note on > hbase-3194? > > Thanks, > St.Ack > > > > On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 9:19 AM, Gary Helmling <ghelml...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > With HBASE-3194 (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-3194), I > > believe HBase 0.90 should run on CDH3B3, as long as you do _not_ have > > kerberos authentication setup for Hadoop > > (hadoop.security.authentication=kerberos in core-site.xml). If you wish > to > > use kerberos authentication, you'll need to use CDH3B3 HBase. > > > > When fixing HBASE-3194, I only tested against Y! secure Hadoop (0.20.S), > but > > the same changes are in CDH3B3 Hadoop, so it should also work there. > > > > I think we should continue to accommodate both secure and insecure Hadoop > > versions as much as we can, as people will likely want to run both for > the > > foreseeable future. > > > > Back to the original question, though, I think it's important to have an > ASF > > 0.20-append release to point users to as well. Are there any plans in > > Hadoop-land for a 0.20-append release? > > > > --gh > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 11:41 PM, Bill Graham <billgra...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > >> Hi Andrew, > >> > >> Just to make sure I'm clear, are you saying that HBase 0.90.0 is > >> incompatible with CDH3b3 due to the security changes? > >> > >> We're just getting going with HBase and have been running 0.90.0rc1 on > >> an un-patched version of Hadoop in dev. We were planning on upgrading > >> to CDH3b3 to get the sync patches. > >> > >> thanks, > >> Bill > >> > >> On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 6:44 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> > >> wrote: > >> > The latest CDH3 beta includes security changes that currently HBase > 0.90 > >> and trunk don't incorporate. Of course we can help out with clear HBase > >> issues, but for security exceptions or similar, what about that? Do we > draw > >> a line? Where? > >> > > >> > I've looked over the CDH3B3 installation documentation but have not > >> installed it nor do presently use it. > >> > > >> > If we draw a line, then as an ASF community we should have a fallback > >> option somewhere in ASF-land for the user to try. Vanilla Hadoop is not > >> sufficient for HBase. Therefore, I propose we make a Hadoop 0.20-append > >> tarball available. > >> > > >> > Best regards, > >> > > >> > - Andy > >> > > >> > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. > >> > - Piet Hein (via Tom White) > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >
