metron-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Justin Leet <justinjl...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Dropping support for elastic 2.x
Date Wed, 04 Oct 2017 17:07:58 GMT
Forgot the link
https://www.elastic.co/guide/en/elasticsearch/reference/current/setup-upgrade.html

On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 1:07 PM, Simon Elliston Ball <
simon@simonellistonball.com> wrote:

> The simplest option would probably be to upgrade the ES and then reindex
> from the HDFS store. Alternatively there are means to do inplace upgrades
> from 2.x to 5.x I believe.
>
> Simon
>
> > On 4 Oct 2017, at 18:05, Casey Stella <cestella@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > So, how would this work in an upgrade scenario that does not involve
> losing
> > the existing indexed data?
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 12:55 PM, Michael Miklavcic <
> > michael.miklavcic@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> The client I'm currently working on moving towards would *not* be
> backwards
> >> compatible.
> >> https://www.elastic.co/guide/en/elasticsearch/client/java-
> >> rest/current/java-rest-high-compatibility.html
> >>
> >> "
> >> The High Level Client is guaranteed to be able to communicate with any
> >> Elasticsearch node running on the same major version and greater or
> equal
> >> minor version. It doesn’t need to be in the same minor version as the
> >> Elasticsearch nodes it communicates with, as it is forward compatible
> >> meaning that it supports communicating with later versions of
> Elasticsearch
> >> than the one it was developed for.
> >>
> >> The 5.6 client can communicate with any 5.6.x Elasticsearch node.
> Previous
> >> 5.x minor versions like 5.5.x, 5.4.x etc. are not (fully) supported.
> >> "
> >>
> >> Best,
> >> Mike
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Simon Elliston Ball <
> >> simon@simonellistonball.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> A number of people are currently working on upgrading the ES support in
> >>> Metron to 5.x (including the clients, and the mpack managed install).
> >>>
> >>> Would anyone have any objections to dropping formal support for 2.x as
> a
> >>> result of this work? In theory the clients should be backward
> compatible
> >>> against older data stores, so metron could be upgraded without needing
> an
> >>> elastic upgrade.
> >>>
> >>> In practice, we would need to do pretty extensive testing and I
> wouldn’t
> >>> want us to have to code around long term support on older clients if
> >> no-one
> >>> in the community cares enough about the older ES. Do we think there is
> a
> >>> case to be made for maintaining long term support for older clients?
> >>>
> >>> Simon
> >>
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message