I think it's fair to note which environments you can run HBase on top of. If we disallow that then we will have the tricky bit where there is no ASF release of Hadoop that is suitable to run HBase on top of. And who knows, perhaps the ceph guys, or openstack or <whatever> might come up with a suitable HDFS interop.
In the mean time, what would be a good line to draw between acceptable vendor shilling, and unacceptable? The line seem fine, but also reasonably recognizable, eg: talking about why one might run HBase here or there seems ok, but talking about value add features in depth might not be. I just want HBase users to have a good experience running HBase, no matter where that might end up being. On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 1:20 PM, Buttler, David <buttl...@llnl.gov> wrote: >> However, only two vendors deliver a platform that supports hbase (with >> append): Cloudera and MapR. Â HortonWorks and ASF do not (to my knowledge). I >> am not sure I can count hard to find/compile branches that exist in ASF's >> version control as "supporting" hbase. >> > > Yes. > > The manual says this on hadoop version currently: > > "This version of HBase will only run on Hadoop 0.20.x. It will not run > on hadoop 0.21.x (nor 0.22.x). HBase will lose data unless it is > running on an HDFS that has a durable sync. Hadoop 0.20.2 and Hadoop > 0.20.203.0 DO NOT have this attribute. Currently only the > branch-0.20-append branch has this.... > > Or rather than build your own, you could use Cloudera's CDH3. CDH has > the 0.20-append patches needed to add a durable sync (CDH3 betas will > suffice; b2, b3, or b4)." > > Unless objection, I think I should add MapR to the tail of the last > paragraph (with the 'free as in free beer' caveat). > > St.Ack >
