DISCUSSION: Minimum hbase1 version from which you can upgrade to hbase2 (1.2.x?)

[Stack <st...@duboce.net>]

Over in the adjacent "[DISCUSS] hbase-2.0.0 compatibility expectations"
thread, we chatted some on what would be the minimum hbase-1.x version from
which you can upgrade to hbase-2.

The last statement made on this topic by Sean was that only upgrades from
1.2.x, our current stable offering, or later should be supported.

There was no dissent.

We all good w/ this? Speak up if you disagree else 1.2.x becomes the
'official' minimum.

NOTES:

+ We need to agree on a minimum so we know what migrations to test.
+ It might be possible to upgrade from versions before 1.2.x but we (or at
least I -- smile) won't have tried it or run verifications to ensure all
made it over (let us know if you successfully migrate from a baseline that
precedes 1.2).
+ Hopefully we can avoid requiring Users move to the latest on the 1.2
branch. This shouldn't be necessary doing a stop/start upgrade. It might be
needed doing a rolling upgrade. Lets see.

Thanks,
St.Ack

Re: DISCUSSION: Minimum hbase1 version from which you can upgrade to hbase2 (1.2.x?)

[Yu Li <ca...@gmail.com>]

bq. Don't know. Will shout if I find anything. Will try it soon (next week
or so).
Thank you sir, will wait for your note. Will also try the upgrade if time
allows and shout if find anything.

Best Regards,
Yu

On 12 November 2017 at 04:46, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 9:06 PM, Yu Li <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Sorry for the late response boss. We're still on 1.1 and have been
> keeping
> > a close watch on 2.0 progress (silently though, sorry about this,
> occupied
> > by singles day). If 1.2 could rolling upgrade to 2.0, anything special
> that
> > prevents 1.1 to (could you please refer me to some JIRA)? Thanks.
> >
> >
> Don't know. Will shout if I find anything. Will try it soon (next week or
> so).
>
>
> > Rolling upgrade is a must-have for us when choosing the next version, and
> > since we have already backported the offheap work, 2.0 would be the first
> > choice for us than 1.4 (to avoid the pain of another round patch porting)
> > (smile)
> >
> > Good to know.
>
> Going to an intermediate version would be a PITA for you I'm sure.
>
> St.Ack
>
>
>
> > Best Regards,
> > Yu
> >
> > On 9 November 2017 at 14:08, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
> >
> > > FYI, I'm resolving HBASE-13631 "Migration from 0.94 to 2.0.0" because
> of
> > > the discussion here on this thread.
> > >
> > > Sounds like 1.2 is minimum but lets try and see if we can go from 0.98.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > S
> > >
> > > On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 9:41 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 6:19 PM, Guanghao Zhang <zg...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Our internal branch is based on 0.98. And we plan rolling to 2.0.
> So I
> > > >> will
> > > >> take a try for rolling from 0.98 to 2.0. But we take a lot backport
> to
> > > our
> > > >> internal branch, like async client, netty rpc client, serial
> > > replication,
> > > >> throttling, some replication improvements and so on. So our rolling
> > > >> experience may not apply to community totally. I will post our
> rolling
> > > >> experience (which can apply to community 0.98 branch) after we
> rolling
> > > to
> > > >> 2.0 :-).
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > > Let me try going from 0.98 then and see what is broke. Would be good
> if
> > > > you fellows could do one step rather than two.
> > > > S
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >> 2017-11-05 2:41 GMT+08:00 Stack <st...@duboce.net>:
> > > >>
> > > >> > On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 9:01 PM, Guanghao Zhang <
> zghaobac@gmail.com>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > Can we rolling from 0.98 and 1.1 to 1.2? If this rolling is ok,
> > user
> > > >> can
> > > >> > > rolling to 2.0 by two steps, 0.98 to 1.2, then 1.2 to 2.0.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > Yes. They could do that. Would be a pain. Might be able to go from
> > > 0.98
> > > >> to
> > > >> > 2.0 though... I've not tried it.
> > > >> > St.Ack
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > 2017-11-04 11:25 GMT+08:00 Nick Dimiduk <nd...@gmail.com>:
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > > 1.2 is good, but are we aware of anything that precludes 1.1?
> > > 0.98?
> > > >> On
> > > >> > > disk
> > > >> > > > compatibility (HFile, WAL, AMv2) should be the limiting factor
> > > here,
> > > >> > > right?
> > > >> > > > Wire protocols have been compatible all the while...
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 5:56 PM Zach York <
> > > >> zyork.contribution@gmail.com
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > +1 for having the minimum (supported) hbase1 version be
> 1.2.x.
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 5:30 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net>
> > wrote:
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > Over in the adjacent "[DISCUSS] hbase-2.0.0 compatibility
> > > >> > > expectations"
> > > >> > > > > > thread, we chatted some on what would be the minimum
> > hbase-1.x
> > > >> > > version
> > > >> > > > > from
> > > >> > > > > > which you can upgrade to hbase-2.
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > The last statement made on this topic by Sean was that
> only
> > > >> > upgrades
> > > >> > > > from
> > > >> > > > > > 1.2.x, our current stable offering, or later should be
> > > >> supported.
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > There was no dissent.
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > We all good w/ this? Speak up if you disagree else 1.2.x
> > > becomes
> > > >> > the
> > > >> > > > > > 'official' minimum.
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > NOTES:
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > + We need to agree on a minimum so we know what migrations
> > to
> > > >> test.
> > > >> > > > > > + It might be possible to upgrade from versions before
> 1.2.x
> > > >> but we
> > > >> > > (or
> > > >> > > > > at
> > > >> > > > > > least I -- smile) won't have tried it or run verifications
> > to
> > > >> > ensure
> > > >> > > > all
> > > >> > > > > > made it over (let us know if you successfully migrate
> from a
> > > >> > baseline
> > > >> > > > > that
> > > >> > > > > > precedes 1.2).
> > > >> > > > > > + Hopefully we can avoid requiring Users move to the
> latest
> > on
> > > >> the
> > > >> > > 1.2
> > > >> > > > > > branch. This shouldn't be necessary doing a stop/start
> > > upgrade.
> > > >> It
> > > >> > > > might
> > > >> > > > > be
> > > >> > > > > > needed doing a rolling upgrade. Lets see.
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > >> > > > > > St.Ack
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: DISCUSSION: Minimum hbase1 version from which you can upgrade to hbase2 (1.2.x?)

[Stack <st...@duboce.net>]

On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 9:06 PM, Yu Li <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Sorry for the late response boss. We're still on 1.1 and have been keeping
> a close watch on 2.0 progress (silently though, sorry about this, occupied
> by singles day). If 1.2 could rolling upgrade to 2.0, anything special that
> prevents 1.1 to (could you please refer me to some JIRA)? Thanks.
>
>
Don't know. Will shout if I find anything. Will try it soon (next week or
so).


> Rolling upgrade is a must-have for us when choosing the next version, and
> since we have already backported the offheap work, 2.0 would be the first
> choice for us than 1.4 (to avoid the pain of another round patch porting)
> (smile)
>
> Good to know.

Going to an intermediate version would be a PITA for you I'm sure.

St.Ack



> Best Regards,
> Yu
>
> On 9 November 2017 at 14:08, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
>
> > FYI, I'm resolving HBASE-13631 "Migration from 0.94 to 2.0.0" because of
> > the discussion here on this thread.
> >
> > Sounds like 1.2 is minimum but lets try and see if we can go from 0.98.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > S
> >
> > On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 9:41 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 6:19 PM, Guanghao Zhang <zg...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Our internal branch is based on 0.98. And we plan rolling to 2.0. So I
> > >> will
> > >> take a try for rolling from 0.98 to 2.0. But we take a lot backport to
> > our
> > >> internal branch, like async client, netty rpc client, serial
> > replication,
> > >> throttling, some replication improvements and so on. So our rolling
> > >> experience may not apply to community totally. I will post our rolling
> > >> experience (which can apply to community 0.98 branch) after we rolling
> > to
> > >> 2.0 :-).
> > >>
> > >>
> > > Let me try going from 0.98 then and see what is broke. Would be good if
> > > you fellows could do one step rather than two.
> > > S
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >> 2017-11-05 2:41 GMT+08:00 Stack <st...@duboce.net>:
> > >>
> > >> > On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 9:01 PM, Guanghao Zhang <zg...@gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > Can we rolling from 0.98 and 1.1 to 1.2? If this rolling is ok,
> user
> > >> can
> > >> > > rolling to 2.0 by two steps, 0.98 to 1.2, then 1.2 to 2.0.
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > Yes. They could do that. Would be a pain. Might be able to go from
> > 0.98
> > >> to
> > >> > 2.0 though... I've not tried it.
> > >> > St.Ack
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > > 2017-11-04 11:25 GMT+08:00 Nick Dimiduk <nd...@gmail.com>:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > 1.2 is good, but are we aware of anything that precludes 1.1?
> > 0.98?
> > >> On
> > >> > > disk
> > >> > > > compatibility (HFile, WAL, AMv2) should be the limiting factor
> > here,
> > >> > > right?
> > >> > > > Wire protocols have been compatible all the while...
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 5:56 PM Zach York <
> > >> zyork.contribution@gmail.com
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > wrote:
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > +1 for having the minimum (supported) hbase1 version be 1.2.x.
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 5:30 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net>
> wrote:
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > Over in the adjacent "[DISCUSS] hbase-2.0.0 compatibility
> > >> > > expectations"
> > >> > > > > > thread, we chatted some on what would be the minimum
> hbase-1.x
> > >> > > version
> > >> > > > > from
> > >> > > > > > which you can upgrade to hbase-2.
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > The last statement made on this topic by Sean was that only
> > >> > upgrades
> > >> > > > from
> > >> > > > > > 1.2.x, our current stable offering, or later should be
> > >> supported.
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > There was no dissent.
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > We all good w/ this? Speak up if you disagree else 1.2.x
> > becomes
> > >> > the
> > >> > > > > > 'official' minimum.
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > NOTES:
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > + We need to agree on a minimum so we know what migrations
> to
> > >> test.
> > >> > > > > > + It might be possible to upgrade from versions before 1.2.x
> > >> but we
> > >> > > (or
> > >> > > > > at
> > >> > > > > > least I -- smile) won't have tried it or run verifications
> to
> > >> > ensure
> > >> > > > all
> > >> > > > > > made it over (let us know if you successfully migrate from a
> > >> > baseline
> > >> > > > > that
> > >> > > > > > precedes 1.2).
> > >> > > > > > + Hopefully we can avoid requiring Users move to the latest
> on
> > >> the
> > >> > > 1.2
> > >> > > > > > branch. This shouldn't be necessary doing a stop/start
> > upgrade.
> > >> It
> > >> > > > might
> > >> > > > > be
> > >> > > > > > needed doing a rolling upgrade. Lets see.
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > Thanks,
> > >> > > > > > St.Ack
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: DISCUSSION: Minimum hbase1 version from which you can upgrade to hbase2 (1.2.x?)

[Yu Li <ca...@gmail.com>]

Sorry for the late response boss. We're still on 1.1 and have been keeping
a close watch on 2.0 progress (silently though, sorry about this, occupied
by singles day). If 1.2 could rolling upgrade to 2.0, anything special that
prevents 1.1 to (could you please refer me to some JIRA)? Thanks.

Rolling upgrade is a must-have for us when choosing the next version, and
since we have already backported the offheap work, 2.0 would be the first
choice for us than 1.4 (to avoid the pain of another round patch porting)
(smile)

Best Regards,
Yu

On 9 November 2017 at 14:08, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:

> FYI, I'm resolving HBASE-13631 "Migration from 0.94 to 2.0.0" because of
> the discussion here on this thread.
>
> Sounds like 1.2 is minimum but lets try and see if we can go from 0.98.
>
> Thanks,
> S
>
> On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 9:41 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 6:19 PM, Guanghao Zhang <zg...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Our internal branch is based on 0.98. And we plan rolling to 2.0. So I
> >> will
> >> take a try for rolling from 0.98 to 2.0. But we take a lot backport to
> our
> >> internal branch, like async client, netty rpc client, serial
> replication,
> >> throttling, some replication improvements and so on. So our rolling
> >> experience may not apply to community totally. I will post our rolling
> >> experience (which can apply to community 0.98 branch) after we rolling
> to
> >> 2.0 :-).
> >>
> >>
> > Let me try going from 0.98 then and see what is broke. Would be good if
> > you fellows could do one step rather than two.
> > S
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> 2017-11-05 2:41 GMT+08:00 Stack <st...@duboce.net>:
> >>
> >> > On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 9:01 PM, Guanghao Zhang <zg...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Can we rolling from 0.98 and 1.1 to 1.2? If this rolling is ok, user
> >> can
> >> > > rolling to 2.0 by two steps, 0.98 to 1.2, then 1.2 to 2.0.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > Yes. They could do that. Would be a pain. Might be able to go from
> 0.98
> >> to
> >> > 2.0 though... I've not tried it.
> >> > St.Ack
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > > 2017-11-04 11:25 GMT+08:00 Nick Dimiduk <nd...@gmail.com>:
> >> > >
> >> > > > 1.2 is good, but are we aware of anything that precludes 1.1?
> 0.98?
> >> On
> >> > > disk
> >> > > > compatibility (HFile, WAL, AMv2) should be the limiting factor
> here,
> >> > > right?
> >> > > > Wire protocols have been compatible all the while...
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 5:56 PM Zach York <
> >> zyork.contribution@gmail.com
> >> > >
> >> > > > wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > +1 for having the minimum (supported) hbase1 version be 1.2.x.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 5:30 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > Over in the adjacent "[DISCUSS] hbase-2.0.0 compatibility
> >> > > expectations"
> >> > > > > > thread, we chatted some on what would be the minimum hbase-1.x
> >> > > version
> >> > > > > from
> >> > > > > > which you can upgrade to hbase-2.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > The last statement made on this topic by Sean was that only
> >> > upgrades
> >> > > > from
> >> > > > > > 1.2.x, our current stable offering, or later should be
> >> supported.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > There was no dissent.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > We all good w/ this? Speak up if you disagree else 1.2.x
> becomes
> >> > the
> >> > > > > > 'official' minimum.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > NOTES:
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > + We need to agree on a minimum so we know what migrations to
> >> test.
> >> > > > > > + It might be possible to upgrade from versions before 1.2.x
> >> but we
> >> > > (or
> >> > > > > at
> >> > > > > > least I -- smile) won't have tried it or run verifications to
> >> > ensure
> >> > > > all
> >> > > > > > made it over (let us know if you successfully migrate from a
> >> > baseline
> >> > > > > that
> >> > > > > > precedes 1.2).
> >> > > > > > + Hopefully we can avoid requiring Users move to the latest on
> >> the
> >> > > 1.2
> >> > > > > > branch. This shouldn't be necessary doing a stop/start
> upgrade.
> >> It
> >> > > > might
> >> > > > > be
> >> > > > > > needed doing a rolling upgrade. Lets see.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Thanks,
> >> > > > > > St.Ack
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
>

Re: DISCUSSION: Minimum hbase1 version from which you can upgrade to hbase2 (1.2.x?)

[Stack <st...@duboce.net>]

FYI, I'm resolving HBASE-13631 "Migration from 0.94 to 2.0.0" because of
the discussion here on this thread.

Sounds like 1.2 is minimum but lets try and see if we can go from 0.98.

Thanks,
S

On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 9:41 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:

> On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 6:19 PM, Guanghao Zhang <zg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Our internal branch is based on 0.98. And we plan rolling to 2.0. So I
>> will
>> take a try for rolling from 0.98 to 2.0. But we take a lot backport to our
>> internal branch, like async client, netty rpc client, serial replication,
>> throttling, some replication improvements and so on. So our rolling
>> experience may not apply to community totally. I will post our rolling
>> experience (which can apply to community 0.98 branch) after we rolling to
>> 2.0 :-).
>>
>>
> Let me try going from 0.98 then and see what is broke. Would be good if
> you fellows could do one step rather than two.
> S
>
>
>
>
>> 2017-11-05 2:41 GMT+08:00 Stack <st...@duboce.net>:
>>
>> > On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 9:01 PM, Guanghao Zhang <zg...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Can we rolling from 0.98 and 1.1 to 1.2? If this rolling is ok, user
>> can
>> > > rolling to 2.0 by two steps, 0.98 to 1.2, then 1.2 to 2.0.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > Yes. They could do that. Would be a pain. Might be able to go from 0.98
>> to
>> > 2.0 though... I've not tried it.
>> > St.Ack
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > > 2017-11-04 11:25 GMT+08:00 Nick Dimiduk <nd...@gmail.com>:
>> > >
>> > > > 1.2 is good, but are we aware of anything that precludes 1.1? 0.98?
>> On
>> > > disk
>> > > > compatibility (HFile, WAL, AMv2) should be the limiting factor here,
>> > > right?
>> > > > Wire protocols have been compatible all the while...
>> > > >
>> > > > On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 5:56 PM Zach York <
>> zyork.contribution@gmail.com
>> > >
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > +1 for having the minimum (supported) hbase1 version be 1.2.x.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 5:30 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > Over in the adjacent "[DISCUSS] hbase-2.0.0 compatibility
>> > > expectations"
>> > > > > > thread, we chatted some on what would be the minimum hbase-1.x
>> > > version
>> > > > > from
>> > > > > > which you can upgrade to hbase-2.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > The last statement made on this topic by Sean was that only
>> > upgrades
>> > > > from
>> > > > > > 1.2.x, our current stable offering, or later should be
>> supported.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > There was no dissent.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > We all good w/ this? Speak up if you disagree else 1.2.x becomes
>> > the
>> > > > > > 'official' minimum.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > NOTES:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > + We need to agree on a minimum so we know what migrations to
>> test.
>> > > > > > + It might be possible to upgrade from versions before 1.2.x
>> but we
>> > > (or
>> > > > > at
>> > > > > > least I -- smile) won't have tried it or run verifications to
>> > ensure
>> > > > all
>> > > > > > made it over (let us know if you successfully migrate from a
>> > baseline
>> > > > > that
>> > > > > > precedes 1.2).
>> > > > > > + Hopefully we can avoid requiring Users move to the latest on
>> the
>> > > 1.2
>> > > > > > branch. This shouldn't be necessary doing a stop/start upgrade.
>> It
>> > > > might
>> > > > > be
>> > > > > > needed doing a rolling upgrade. Lets see.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Thanks,
>> > > > > > St.Ack
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
>

Re: DISCUSSION: Minimum hbase1 version from which you can upgrade to hbase2 (1.2.x?)

[Stack <st...@duboce.net>]

On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 6:19 PM, Guanghao Zhang <zg...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Our internal branch is based on 0.98. And we plan rolling to 2.0. So I will
> take a try for rolling from 0.98 to 2.0. But we take a lot backport to our
> internal branch, like async client, netty rpc client, serial replication,
> throttling, some replication improvements and so on. So our rolling
> experience may not apply to community totally. I will post our rolling
> experience (which can apply to community 0.98 branch) after we rolling to
> 2.0 :-).
>
>
Let me try going from 0.98 then and see what is broke. Would be good if you
fellows could do one step rather than two.
S




> 2017-11-05 2:41 GMT+08:00 Stack <st...@duboce.net>:
>
> > On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 9:01 PM, Guanghao Zhang <zg...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Can we rolling from 0.98 and 1.1 to 1.2? If this rolling is ok, user
> can
> > > rolling to 2.0 by two steps, 0.98 to 1.2, then 1.2 to 2.0.
> > >
> > >
> > Yes. They could do that. Would be a pain. Might be able to go from 0.98
> to
> > 2.0 though... I've not tried it.
> > St.Ack
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > 2017-11-04 11:25 GMT+08:00 Nick Dimiduk <nd...@gmail.com>:
> > >
> > > > 1.2 is good, but are we aware of anything that precludes 1.1? 0.98?
> On
> > > disk
> > > > compatibility (HFile, WAL, AMv2) should be the limiting factor here,
> > > right?
> > > > Wire protocols have been compatible all the while...
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 5:56 PM Zach York <
> zyork.contribution@gmail.com
> > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > +1 for having the minimum (supported) hbase1 version be 1.2.x.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 5:30 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Over in the adjacent "[DISCUSS] hbase-2.0.0 compatibility
> > > expectations"
> > > > > > thread, we chatted some on what would be the minimum hbase-1.x
> > > version
> > > > > from
> > > > > > which you can upgrade to hbase-2.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The last statement made on this topic by Sean was that only
> > upgrades
> > > > from
> > > > > > 1.2.x, our current stable offering, or later should be supported.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There was no dissent.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We all good w/ this? Speak up if you disagree else 1.2.x becomes
> > the
> > > > > > 'official' minimum.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > NOTES:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > + We need to agree on a minimum so we know what migrations to
> test.
> > > > > > + It might be possible to upgrade from versions before 1.2.x but
> we
> > > (or
> > > > > at
> > > > > > least I -- smile) won't have tried it or run verifications to
> > ensure
> > > > all
> > > > > > made it over (let us know if you successfully migrate from a
> > baseline
> > > > > that
> > > > > > precedes 1.2).
> > > > > > + Hopefully we can avoid requiring Users move to the latest on
> the
> > > 1.2
> > > > > > branch. This shouldn't be necessary doing a stop/start upgrade.
> It
> > > > might
> > > > > be
> > > > > > needed doing a rolling upgrade. Lets see.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > St.Ack
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: DISCUSSION: Minimum hbase1 version from which you can upgrade to hbase2 (1.2.x?)

[Guanghao Zhang <zg...@gmail.com>]

Our internal branch is based on 0.98. And we plan rolling to 2.0. So I will
take a try for rolling from 0.98 to 2.0. But we take a lot backport to our
internal branch, like async client, netty rpc client, serial replication,
throttling, some replication improvements and so on. So our rolling
experience may not apply to community totally. I will post our rolling
experience (which can apply to community 0.98 branch) after we rolling to
2.0 :-).

2017-11-05 2:41 GMT+08:00 Stack <st...@duboce.net>:

> On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 9:01 PM, Guanghao Zhang <zg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Can we rolling from 0.98 and 1.1 to 1.2? If this rolling is ok, user can
> > rolling to 2.0 by two steps, 0.98 to 1.2, then 1.2 to 2.0.
> >
> >
> Yes. They could do that. Would be a pain. Might be able to go from 0.98 to
> 2.0 though... I've not tried it.
> St.Ack
>
>
>
>
> > 2017-11-04 11:25 GMT+08:00 Nick Dimiduk <nd...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > > 1.2 is good, but are we aware of anything that precludes 1.1? 0.98? On
> > disk
> > > compatibility (HFile, WAL, AMv2) should be the limiting factor here,
> > right?
> > > Wire protocols have been compatible all the while...
> > >
> > > On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 5:56 PM Zach York <zyork.contribution@gmail.com
> >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1 for having the minimum (supported) hbase1 version be 1.2.x.
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 5:30 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Over in the adjacent "[DISCUSS] hbase-2.0.0 compatibility
> > expectations"
> > > > > thread, we chatted some on what would be the minimum hbase-1.x
> > version
> > > > from
> > > > > which you can upgrade to hbase-2.
> > > > >
> > > > > The last statement made on this topic by Sean was that only
> upgrades
> > > from
> > > > > 1.2.x, our current stable offering, or later should be supported.
> > > > >
> > > > > There was no dissent.
> > > > >
> > > > > We all good w/ this? Speak up if you disagree else 1.2.x becomes
> the
> > > > > 'official' minimum.
> > > > >
> > > > > NOTES:
> > > > >
> > > > > + We need to agree on a minimum so we know what migrations to test.
> > > > > + It might be possible to upgrade from versions before 1.2.x but we
> > (or
> > > > at
> > > > > least I -- smile) won't have tried it or run verifications to
> ensure
> > > all
> > > > > made it over (let us know if you successfully migrate from a
> baseline
> > > > that
> > > > > precedes 1.2).
> > > > > + Hopefully we can avoid requiring Users move to the latest on the
> > 1.2
> > > > > branch. This shouldn't be necessary doing a stop/start upgrade. It
> > > might
> > > > be
> > > > > needed doing a rolling upgrade. Lets see.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > St.Ack
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: DISCUSSION: Minimum hbase1 version from which you can upgrade to hbase2 (1.2.x?)

[Stack <st...@duboce.net>]

On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 9:01 PM, Guanghao Zhang <zg...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Can we rolling from 0.98 and 1.1 to 1.2? If this rolling is ok, user can
> rolling to 2.0 by two steps, 0.98 to 1.2, then 1.2 to 2.0.
>
>
Yes. They could do that. Would be a pain. Might be able to go from 0.98 to
2.0 though... I've not tried it.
St.Ack




> 2017-11-04 11:25 GMT+08:00 Nick Dimiduk <nd...@gmail.com>:
>
> > 1.2 is good, but are we aware of anything that precludes 1.1? 0.98? On
> disk
> > compatibility (HFile, WAL, AMv2) should be the limiting factor here,
> right?
> > Wire protocols have been compatible all the while...
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 5:56 PM Zach York <zy...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > +1 for having the minimum (supported) hbase1 version be 1.2.x.
> > >
> > > On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 5:30 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Over in the adjacent "[DISCUSS] hbase-2.0.0 compatibility
> expectations"
> > > > thread, we chatted some on what would be the minimum hbase-1.x
> version
> > > from
> > > > which you can upgrade to hbase-2.
> > > >
> > > > The last statement made on this topic by Sean was that only upgrades
> > from
> > > > 1.2.x, our current stable offering, or later should be supported.
> > > >
> > > > There was no dissent.
> > > >
> > > > We all good w/ this? Speak up if you disagree else 1.2.x becomes the
> > > > 'official' minimum.
> > > >
> > > > NOTES:
> > > >
> > > > + We need to agree on a minimum so we know what migrations to test.
> > > > + It might be possible to upgrade from versions before 1.2.x but we
> (or
> > > at
> > > > least I -- smile) won't have tried it or run verifications to ensure
> > all
> > > > made it over (let us know if you successfully migrate from a baseline
> > > that
> > > > precedes 1.2).
> > > > + Hopefully we can avoid requiring Users move to the latest on the
> 1.2
> > > > branch. This shouldn't be necessary doing a stop/start upgrade. It
> > might
> > > be
> > > > needed doing a rolling upgrade. Lets see.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > St.Ack
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: DISCUSSION: Minimum hbase1 version from which you can upgrade to hbase2 (1.2.x?)

[Guanghao Zhang <zg...@gmail.com>]

Can we rolling from 0.98 and 1.1 to 1.2? If this rolling is ok, user can
rolling to 2.0 by two steps, 0.98 to 1.2, then 1.2 to 2.0.

2017-11-04 11:25 GMT+08:00 Nick Dimiduk <nd...@gmail.com>:

> 1.2 is good, but are we aware of anything that precludes 1.1? 0.98? On disk
> compatibility (HFile, WAL, AMv2) should be the limiting factor here, right?
> Wire protocols have been compatible all the while...
>
> On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 5:56 PM Zach York <zy...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > +1 for having the minimum (supported) hbase1 version be 1.2.x.
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 5:30 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Over in the adjacent "[DISCUSS] hbase-2.0.0 compatibility expectations"
> > > thread, we chatted some on what would be the minimum hbase-1.x version
> > from
> > > which you can upgrade to hbase-2.
> > >
> > > The last statement made on this topic by Sean was that only upgrades
> from
> > > 1.2.x, our current stable offering, or later should be supported.
> > >
> > > There was no dissent.
> > >
> > > We all good w/ this? Speak up if you disagree else 1.2.x becomes the
> > > 'official' minimum.
> > >
> > > NOTES:
> > >
> > > + We need to agree on a minimum so we know what migrations to test.
> > > + It might be possible to upgrade from versions before 1.2.x but we (or
> > at
> > > least I -- smile) won't have tried it or run verifications to ensure
> all
> > > made it over (let us know if you successfully migrate from a baseline
> > that
> > > precedes 1.2).
> > > + Hopefully we can avoid requiring Users move to the latest on the 1.2
> > > branch. This shouldn't be necessary doing a stop/start upgrade. It
> might
> > be
> > > needed doing a rolling upgrade. Lets see.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > St.Ack
> > >
> >
>

Re: DISCUSSION: Minimum hbase1 version from which you can upgrade to hbase2 (1.2.x?)

[Stack <st...@duboce.net>]

On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 8:25 PM, Nick Dimiduk <nd...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 1.2 is good, but are we aware of anything that precludes 1.1? 0.98? On disk
> compatibility (HFile, WAL, AMv2) should be the limiting factor here, right?
> Wire protocols have been compatible all the while...
>
>
I don't know of anything (Anyone know of anything in here that could hamper
a migration?). I suppose I could give it a go. I was just trying to get
away with a minimal spread.
Thanks Nick,
S



> On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 5:56 PM Zach York <zy...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > +1 for having the minimum (supported) hbase1 version be 1.2.x.
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 5:30 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Over in the adjacent "[DISCUSS] hbase-2.0.0 compatibility expectations"
> > > thread, we chatted some on what would be the minimum hbase-1.x version
> > from
> > > which you can upgrade to hbase-2.
> > >
> > > The last statement made on this topic by Sean was that only upgrades
> from
> > > 1.2.x, our current stable offering, or later should be supported.
> > >
> > > There was no dissent.
> > >
> > > We all good w/ this? Speak up if you disagree else 1.2.x becomes the
> > > 'official' minimum.
> > >
> > > NOTES:
> > >
> > > + We need to agree on a minimum so we know what migrations to test.
> > > + It might be possible to upgrade from versions before 1.2.x but we (or
> > at
> > > least I -- smile) won't have tried it or run verifications to ensure
> all
> > > made it over (let us know if you successfully migrate from a baseline
> > that
> > > precedes 1.2).
> > > + Hopefully we can avoid requiring Users move to the latest on the 1.2
> > > branch. This shouldn't be necessary doing a stop/start upgrade. It
> might
> > be
> > > needed doing a rolling upgrade. Lets see.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > St.Ack
> > >
> >
>

Re: DISCUSSION: Minimum hbase1 version from which you can upgrade to hbase2 (1.2.x?)

[Nick Dimiduk <nd...@gmail.com>]

1.2 is good, but are we aware of anything that precludes 1.1? 0.98? On disk
compatibility (HFile, WAL, AMv2) should be the limiting factor here, right?
Wire protocols have been compatible all the while...

On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 5:56 PM Zach York <zy...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> +1 for having the minimum (supported) hbase1 version be 1.2.x.
>
> On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 5:30 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
>
> > Over in the adjacent "[DISCUSS] hbase-2.0.0 compatibility expectations"
> > thread, we chatted some on what would be the minimum hbase-1.x version
> from
> > which you can upgrade to hbase-2.
> >
> > The last statement made on this topic by Sean was that only upgrades from
> > 1.2.x, our current stable offering, or later should be supported.
> >
> > There was no dissent.
> >
> > We all good w/ this? Speak up if you disagree else 1.2.x becomes the
> > 'official' minimum.
> >
> > NOTES:
> >
> > + We need to agree on a minimum so we know what migrations to test.
> > + It might be possible to upgrade from versions before 1.2.x but we (or
> at
> > least I -- smile) won't have tried it or run verifications to ensure all
> > made it over (let us know if you successfully migrate from a baseline
> that
> > precedes 1.2).
> > + Hopefully we can avoid requiring Users move to the latest on the 1.2
> > branch. This shouldn't be necessary doing a stop/start upgrade. It might
> be
> > needed doing a rolling upgrade. Lets see.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > St.Ack
> >
>

Re: DISCUSSION: Minimum hbase1 version from which you can upgrade to hbase2 (1.2.x?)

[Zach York <zy...@gmail.com>]

+1 for having the minimum (supported) hbase1 version be 1.2.x.

On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 5:30 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:

> Over in the adjacent "[DISCUSS] hbase-2.0.0 compatibility expectations"
> thread, we chatted some on what would be the minimum hbase-1.x version from
> which you can upgrade to hbase-2.
>
> The last statement made on this topic by Sean was that only upgrades from
> 1.2.x, our current stable offering, or later should be supported.
>
> There was no dissent.
>
> We all good w/ this? Speak up if you disagree else 1.2.x becomes the
> 'official' minimum.
>
> NOTES:
>
> + We need to agree on a minimum so we know what migrations to test.
> + It might be possible to upgrade from versions before 1.2.x but we (or at
> least I -- smile) won't have tried it or run verifications to ensure all
> made it over (let us know if you successfully migrate from a baseline that
> precedes 1.2).
> + Hopefully we can avoid requiring Users move to the latest on the 1.2
> branch. This shouldn't be necessary doing a stop/start upgrade. It might be
> needed doing a rolling upgrade. Lets see.
>
> Thanks,
> St.Ack
>