It seems this is going to have to be something that is a judgment call. It will be hard to define
exactly when you should or shouldn't mention something. The general principle is that the ASF
option should always be touted first, followed by any other OSS / free options, then if no other
options exist the commercial software. I think Ted understood this when he started his email
"Slightly off topic..."
If Ted had answered the post along the lines of (I ganked the reply from Joey):
Hadoop and HBase are pretty monitoring tool agnostic. It does provide
a number of metrics via JMX and a REST interface which you can tie
into the monitoring tool of your choice.
Ted
p.s. If you are using MapR it will do this for you out of the box.
I don't think any of us would be having this conversion right now. The email would have promoted
the ASF, OSS option that is available to everyone. Also I wouldn't have a problem with the small
reference to MapR as it has a unique out of the box solution not available with the ASF release.
For the same reason I don't mind references to CDH3 for the hadoop append branch as it a solution
not found in an ASF release.
My 2 cents,
~Jeff
"If we have data we'll use data, if we have opinions we'll use mine."
On 7/25/2011 3:48 PM, Ryan Rawson wrote:
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. 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
--
Jeff Whiting
Qualtrics Senior Software Engineer
je...@qualtrics.com
