Yep. That's also why I've doing 0.94 release all this time. 0.92 had a
no-downtime path to 0.94. And 0.96 had a no downtime path to 0.98. So both
could be EOL'ed with relatively little annoyance.0.94 is different as going to
0.96 or later (including 0.98) is a big change and requires downtime.
If there's a desire I'm happy to continue to do 0.94 releases for a while.
Backporting fixes will become more tedious over time, though, as the code lines
diverge as time goes on.Maybe a bigger push could be to add a zero-downtime
story (somehow) to 0.94, release that in a last release, and then EOL 0.94.
Maybe we can brainstorm how a zero downtime cut over can be done. It's tricky
from multiple angles:- replication between 0.94 and 0.98 does not work (there's
a gateway process that supposedly does that, but it's not known to be very
reliable)- snapshots cannot be exported from 0.94 and 0.98 (please correct me
if I'm wrong here)- clients cannot load the 0.94 and 0.98 client at the same
into the same JVM (classloader to be specific, so if have OSGi you might be OK)
I'd be happy to hear what design you have in mind.
Thrift should still work between both version in the same way - we'd need to
confirm this.Matteo, if you're listening... Do you have an inkling about how
hard it would be to export a 0.94 snapshot to 0.98?
-- Lars
From: Jeremy Carroll <phobos...@gmail.com>
To: "user@hbase.apache.org" <user@hbase.apache.org>
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 4:49 PM
Subject: Re: 0.94 going forward
Which is why I feel that a lot of customers are still on 0.94. Pretty much
trapped unless you want to take downtime for your site. Any type of
guidance would be helpful. We are currently in the process of designing our
own system to deal with this.
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 4:47 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Zero downtime upgrade from 0.94 won't be possible. See
> http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#d0e5199
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 4:44 PM, Jeremy Carroll <phobos...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Looking for guidance on how to do a zero downtime upgrade from 0.94 ->
> 0.98
> > (or 1.0 if it launches soon). As soon as we can figure this out, we will
> > migrate over.
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 1:37 PM, Esteban Gutierrez <este...@cloudera.com
> >
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Lars,
> > >
> > > Thanks for bringing this for discussion. From my experience I can tell
> > that
> > > 0.94 is very stable but that shouldn't be a blocker to consider to
> > EOL'ing.
> > > Are you considering any specific timeframe for that?
> > >
> > > thanks,
> > > esteban.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Cloudera, Inc.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 11:46 AM, Koert Kuipers <ko...@tresata.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > given that CDH4 is hbase 0.94 i dont believe nobody is using it. for
> > our
> > > > clients the majority is on 0.94 (versus 0.96 and up).
> > > >
> > > > so i am going with 1), its very stable!
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 1:53 PM, lars hofhansl <la...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Over the past few months the rate of the change into 0.94 has
> slowed
> > > > > significantly.
> > > > > 0.94.25 was released on Nov 15th, and since then we had only 4
> > changes.
> > > > >
> > > > > This could mean two things: (1) 0.94 is very stable now or (2)
> nobody
> > > is
> > > > > using it (at least nobody is contributing to it anymore).
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > If anybody out there is still using 0.94 and is not planning to
> > upgrade
> > > > to
> > > > > 0.98 or later soon (which will required downtime), please speak up.
> > > > > Otherwise it might be time to think about EOL'ing 0.94.
> > > > >
> > > > > It's not actually much work to do these releases, especially when
> > they
> > > > are
> > > > > so small, but I'd like to continue only if they are actually used.
> > > > > In any case, I am going to spin 0.94.26 with the current 4 fixes
> > today
> > > or
> > > > > tomorrow.
> > > > >
> > > > > -- Lars
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
>
> - Andy
>
> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
> (via Tom White)
>
