hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Vladimir Rodionov <vladrodio...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSSION] Merge Backup / Restore - Branch HBASE-7912
Date Wed, 07 Sep 2016 15:46:28 GMT

* have docs

Agree. We have a doc and backup is the most documented feature :), we will
release it shortly to Apache.

* have sunny-day correctness tests

Feature has  close to 60 test cases, which run for approx 30 min. We can
add more, if community do not mind :)

* have correctness-in-face-of-failure tests

Any examples of these tests in existing features? In works, we have a clear
understanding of what should be done by the time of 2.0 release.
That is very close goal for us, to verify IT monkey for existing code.

* don't rely on things outside of HBase for normal operation (okay for
advanced operation)

We do not.

Enormous time has been spent already on the development and testing the
feature, it has passed our internal tests and many rounds of code reviews
by HBase committers. We do not mind if someone from HBase community
(outside of HW) will review the code, but it will probably takes forever to
wait for volunteer?, the feature is quite large (1MB+ cumulative patch)

2.0 branch is full of half baked features, most of them are in active
development, therefore I am not following you here, Sean? Why HBASE-7912 is
not good enough yet to be integrated into 2.0 branch?


On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 8:23 AM, Sean Busbey <busbey@apache.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 10:36 PM, Josh Elser <josh.elser@gmail.com> wrote:
> > So, the answer to Sean's original question is "as robust as snapshots
> > presently are"? (independence of backup/restore failure tolerance from
> > snapshot failure tolerance)
> >
> > Is this just a question WRT context of the change, or is it means for a
> veto
> > from you, Sean? Just trying to make sure I'm following along adequately.
> >
> >
> I'd say ATM I'm -0, bordering on -1 but not for reasons I can articulate
> well.
> Here's an attempt.
> We've been trying to move, as a community, towards minimizing risk to
> downstream folks by getting "complete enough for use" gates in place
> before we introduce new features. This was spurred by a some features
> getting in half-baked and never making it to "can really use" status
> (I'm thinking of distributed log replay and the zk-less assignment
> stuff, I don't recall if there was more).
> The gates, generally, included things like:
> * have docs
> * have sunny-day correctness tests
> * have correctness-in-face-of-failure tests
> * don't rely on things outside of HBase for normal operation (okay for
> advanced operation)
> As an example, we kept the MOB work off in a branch and out of master
> until it could pass these criteria. The big exemption we've had to
> this was the hbase-spark integration, where we all agreed it could
> land in master because it was very well isolated (the slide away from
> including docs as a first-class part of building up that integration
> has led me to doubt the wisdom of this decision).
> We've also been treating inclusion in a "probably will be released to
> downstream" branches as a higher bar, requiring
> * don't moderately impact performance when the feature isn't in use
> * don't severely impact performance when the feature is in use
> * either default-to-on or show enough demand to believe a non-trivial
> number of folks will turn the feature on
> The above has kept MOB and hbase-spark integration out of branch-1,
> presumably while they've "gotten more stable" in master from the odd
> vendor inclusion.
> Are we going to have a 2.0 release before the end of the year? We're
> coming up on 1.5 years since the release of version 1.0; seems like
> it's about time, though I haven't seen any concrete plans this year.
> Presuming we are going to have one by the end of the year, it seems a
> bit close to still be adding in "features that need maturing" on the
> branch.
> The lack of a concrete plan for 2.0 keeps me from considering these
> things blocker at the moment. But I know first hand how much trouble
> folks have had with other features that have gone into downstream
> facing releases without robustness checks (i.e. replication), and I'm
> concerned about what we're setting up if 2.0 goes out with this
> feature in its current state.

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