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 Fri, 02 Sep 2016 15:12:23 GMT
>>Are they independent enough that we can get backup/restore tolerant to
>>failures prior to merge to master? Prior to backport to branch-1?

As we stated already, snapshots are not part of the feature, snapshots has
been merged into the master long time ago
and as far as I understood - without requiring them to be 100% robust and
fault tolerant and they are widely used in many production systems
nevertheless. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-14415 relies on
Snapshots v2 but we can reconsider it, there are some thoughts how to make
backups snapshotless.

Backups are fault tolerant to some extent - in case of failure (and
failures can happen) we clean everything up and do not leave system table
in inconsistent state. Would it be enough, Sean Busbey?

-Vlad

On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 7:38 AM, Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com> wrote:

> We're continuing to make backup / restore more robust.
> Work in progress (both are close to being integrated):
>
> HBASE-15565 Rewrite restore with Procedure V2
> HBASE-15449 Support physical table layout change
>
> Since snapshot is dependency in the full backup, backup / restore wouldn't
> be more robust than snapshot is.
>
> On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 7:03 AM, Sean Busbey <busbey@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
> > right, they're separate features but when asked about "robust
> > backup/restore" (which is what I care about for this feature getting
> > merged) things were pawned off on snapshots.
> >
> > Are they independent enough that we can get backup/restore tolerant to
> > failures prior to merge to master? Prior to backport to branch-1?
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 1:11 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > I agree these are separate features FWIW
> > >
> > > On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 11:09 AM, Vladimir Rodionov <
> > vladrodionov@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> >> Do we have JIRA issue(s) covering making snapshots robust in the
> face
> > >> >> of monkeys?
> > >>
> > >> I would like to mention that "robust snapshots" and "table
> > backup/restore"
> > >> are totally separate features, but we have separate JIRA for fault
> > >> tolerance (HBASE-14413).
> > >>
> > >> -Vlad
> > >>
> > >> On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 9:28 AM, Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Sean:
> > >> > Please see HBASE-14413 for the last question.
> > >> >
> > >> > FYI
> > >> >
> > >> > On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 9:24 AM, Sean Busbey <busbey@cloudera.com>
> > wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 12:59 PM, Vladimir Rodionov
> > >> > > <vladrodionov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > > > Not sure what do you mean, Andrew by "trying out the branch
via
> > the
> > >> > IT",
> > >> > > > but we do not recommend running this with monkey enabled.
> > >> > > > It has not been tested in a such scenario yet and frankly
> > speaking it
> > >> > is
> > >> > > > not supposed to work (snapshots will fail anyway and we
depends
> on
> > >> > > > snapshots)
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Also won't have time to test out the branch this week, but if
> we're
> > >> > > not going to handle failures do we have tools or guidance on
> > >> > > recovering in the case of things falling over?
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Do we have JIRA issue(s) covering making snapshots robust in
the
> > face
> > >> > > of monkeys?
> > >> > >
> > >> > > --
> > >> > > busbey
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best regards,
> > >
> > >    - Andy
> > >
> > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet
> Hein
> > > (via Tom White)
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > busbey
> >
>

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