hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stack <st...@duboce.net>
Subject Backup Implementation (WAS => Re: [DISCUSSION] MR jobs started by Master or RS)
Date Sat, 24 Sep 2016 00:15:10 GMT
(Moved out of the Master doing MR DISCUSSION)

On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 12:24 PM, Vladimir Rodionov <vladrodionov@gmail.com>
wrote:

> >>  -1 on that backup be in core hbase
>
> Not sure I understand what it means.
>
> Sorry for the imprecision.

The -1 is NOT against backup/restore. I am -1 on MR as a dependency and so
-1 on the Master running backup/restore MR jobs, even if optional.

Master should not depend on MR. We've gone out of our way to avoid taking
MR on as dependency in the past. Seems late in the game for us to change
our opinion on this. If we didn't do it for distributed log splitting, or
MOB, why would we do it to support an optional backup/restore?

I have opinions on the questions below -- i.e. that Master running
backup/restore is outside of the Master's charge -- but they are not worth
much since I've not done much by way of review or contrib to backup/restore
other than to try it as a 'user' so I'll keep them to myself until I do. I
only came out from under my shell to participate on the MR as dependency
chat.

Thanks,
M


1. We are not allowed to use Master to orchestrate the whole process?


We
> have already brought up all advantages of using
>    Master and distributed procedures for backup and restore.
>
>
> Downside of moving this to client tool is lack of fault tolerance:
>  1.1 Client won't be allowed to do any operations, that can, potentially
> affect
> cluster, such as disabling splits/merges, balancer.
>  1.2 In case of client failure who will be doing the whole rollback stuff?
> We are trying to make it atomic.
>
> Security is not clear.



2. We are not allowed to modify code of existing HBase core classes (what
> does core mean anyway)?
>
>


> 3. We are not allowed to create backup system table (hbase:backup) in a
> system space? Only in user space? The table is global.
>


> 2. is critical. Despite the fact, that 95% of code is new, we have touched,
> of course some existing HBase code.
> 3. is not that critical, of course we can move backup system into user
> space.
>
> And finally, will moving backup into external tool give us +1 from stack?
>
> -Vlad
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 11:26 AM, Stack <stack@duboce.net> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 11:22 AM, Vladimir Rodionov <
> > vladrodionov@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > >> + MR is dead
> > >
> > > Does MR know that? :)
> > >
> > > Again. With all due respect, stack - still no suggestions what should
> we
> > > use for "bulk data move and transformation" instead of MR?
> > >
> >
> > Use whatever distributed engine suits your fancy -- MR, Spark,
> distributed
> > shell -- just don't have HBase core depend on it, even optionally.
> >
> >
> > > I suggest voting first on "do we need backup in HBase"? In my opinion,
> > some
> > > group members still not sure about that and some will give -1
> > > in any case. Just because ...
> > >
> > >
> > We could run a vote, sure. -1 on that backup be in core hbase (+1 on
> adding
> > all the API any such external tool might need to run).
> >
> > St.Ack
> >
> >
> >
> > > -Vlad
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Stack <stack@duboce.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 6:46 AM, Matteo Bertozzi <
> > > theo.bertozzi@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > let me try to go back to my original topic.
> > > > > this question was meant to be generic, and provide some rule for
> > future
> > > > > code.
> > > > >
> > > > > from what I can gather, a rule that may satisfy everyone can be:
> > > > >  - we don't want any core feature (e.g. compaction/log-split/log-
> > > reply)
> > > > > over MR, because some cluster may not want or may have an
> > > > > external/uncontrolled MR setup.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > +1
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >  - we allow non-core features (e.g. features enabled by a flag) to
> > run
> > > MR
> > > > > jobs from hbase, because unless you use the feature, MR is not
> > > required.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > -1 to hbase core depending on MR or core -- whether behind a flag or
> > not
> > > --
> > > > ever being able to launch MR jobs.
> > > >
> > > > + MR is dead. We should be busy working hard to undo it from
> > hbase-server
> > > > moving it out to be an optional module (Spark would be its peer).
> > > > + Master is a rats nest of state. Matteo, Stephen, and Appy are busy
> > > > working hard on moving it up on to a new foundation. Lets not clutter
> > > task
> > > > harder by piling on more moving parts.
> > > >
> > > > St.Ack
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Matteo
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 5:39 AM, Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I suggest you look at Matteo's work for AssignmentManager which
> is
> > to
> > > > > make
> > > > > > Master more stable.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Cheers
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 5:32 AM, 张铎 <palomino219@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > No, not your fault, at lease, not this time:)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Why I call the code ugly? Can you simply tell me the sequence
> of
> > > > calls
> > > > > > when
> > > > > > > starting up the HMaster? HMaster is also a regionserver
so it
> > > extends
> > > > > > > HRegionServer, and the initialization of HRegionServer
> sometimes
> > > > needs
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > make rpc calls to HMaster. A simple change would cause
> > > probabilistic
> > > > > dead
> > > > > > > lock or some strange NPEs...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That's why I'm very nervous when somebody wants to add
new
> > features
> > > > or
> > > > > > add
> > > > > > > external dependencies to HMaster, especially add more works
for
> > the
> > > > > start
> > > > > > > up processing...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2016-09-23 20:02 GMT+08:00 Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I read through HADOOP-13433
> > > > > > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-13433>
- the
> > cited
> > > > > race
> > > > > > > > condition is in jdk.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Suggest pinging the reviewer on JIRA to get it moving.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > bq. But the ugly code in HMaster is readlly a problem...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Can you be specific as to which code is ugly ? Is
it in the
> > > backup
> > > > /
> > > > > > > > restore mega patch ?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Cheers
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 10:44 PM, 张铎 <palomino219@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > If you guys have already implemented the feature
in the MR
> > way
> > > > and
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > patch is ready for landing on master, I'm a -0
on it as I
> do
> > > not
> > > > > want
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > block the development progress.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > But I strongly suggest later we need to revisit
the design
> > and
> > > > see
> > > > > if
> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > can seperated the logic from HMaster as much
as possible.
> HA
> > is
> > > > > not a
> > > > > > > big
> > > > > > > > > problem if you do not store any metada locally.
But the
> ugly
> > > code
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > HMaster is readlly a problem...
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > And for security, I have a issue pending for
a long time.
> Can
> > > > > someone
> > > > > > > > help
> > > > > > > > > taking a simple look at it? This is what I mean,
ugly
> code...
> > > > > logout
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > destroy the credentials in a subject when it
is still being
> > > used,
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > declared as LimitPrivacy so I can not change
the behivor
> and
> > > the
> > > > > only
> > > > > > > way
> > > > > > > > > to fix it is to write another piece of ugly code...
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-13433
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 2016-09-23 12:53 GMT+08:00 Vladimir Rodionov
<
> > > > > vladrodionov@gmail.com
> > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> If in the future, we find better
ways of doing this
> > > without
> > > > > > using
> > > > > > > > MR,
> > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > can certainly consider that
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Our framework for distributed operations
is abstract and
> > > allows
> > > > > > > > > > different implementations. MR is just one
implementation
> we
> > > > > > provide.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > -Vlad
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 9:38 PM, Devaraj
Das <
> > > > > ddas@hortonworks.com
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Guys, first off apologies for bringing
in the topic of
> > > > MR-based
> > > > > > > > > > > compactions.. But I was thinking more
about the
> > > SpliceMachine
> > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > managing compactions in Spark where
apparently they
> saw a
> > > lot
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > benefits.
> > > > > > > > > > > Apologies for giving you that sore
throat Andrew; I
> > really
> > > > > didn't
> > > > > > > > mean
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > :-)
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > So on this issue, we have these on
the plate:
> > > > > > > > > > > 0. Somehow not use MR but something
like that
> > > > > > > > > > > 1. Run a standalone service other than
master
> > > > > > > > > > > 2. Shell out from the master
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I don't think we have a good answer
to (0), and I don't
> > > think
> > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > even
> > > > > > > > > > > worth the effort of trying to build
something when MR
> is
> > > > > already
> > > > > > > > there,
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > being used by HBase already for some
operations.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On (1), we have to deal with a myriad
of issues - HA of
> > the
> > > > > > server
> > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > being the least of them all. Security
(kerberos
> > > > authentication,
> > > > > > > > another
> > > > > > > > > > > keytab to manage, etc. etc. etc.).
IMO, that approach
> is
> > > DOA.
> > > > > > > Instead
> > > > > > > > > > let's
> > > > > > > > > > > substitute that (1) with the HBase
Master. I haven't
> seen
> > > any
> > > > > > good
> > > > > > > > > reason
> > > > > > > > > > > why the HBase master shouldn't launch
MR jobs if
> needed.
> > > It's
> > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > ideal;
> > > > > > > > > > > agreed.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Now before going to (2), let's see
what are the
> benefits
> > of
> > > > > > running
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > backup/restore jobs from the master.
I think Ted has
> > > > summarized
> > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > issues that we need to take care of
- basically, the
> > master
> > > > can
> > > > > > > keep
> > > > > > > > > > track
> > > > > > > > > > > of running jobs, and should it fail,
the backup master
> > can
> > > > > > continue
> > > > > > > > > > keeping
> > > > > > > > > > > track of it (since the jobId would
have been recorded
> in
> > > the
> > > > > proc
> > > > > > > > WAL).
> > > > > > > > > > The
> > > > > > > > > > > master can also do cleanup, etc. of
failed
> backup/restore
> > > > > > > processes.
> > > > > > > > > > > Security is another issue - the job
needs to run as
> > 'hbase'
> > > > > since
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > owns
> > > > > > > > > > > the data. Having the master launch
the job makes it get
> > > that
> > > > > > > > privilege.
> > > > > > > > > > In
> > > > > > > > > > > the (2) approach, it's hard to do some
of the above
> > > > management.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Guys, just to reiterate, the patch
as such is ready
> from
> > > the
> > > > > > > overall
> > > > > > > > > > > design/arch point of view (maybe code
review is still
> > > pending
> > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > Matteo).
> > > > > > > > > > > If in the future, we find better ways
of doing this
> > without
> > > > > using
> > > > > > > MR,
> > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > can certainly consider that. But IMO
don't think we
> > should
> > > > > block
> > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > patch
> > > > > > > > > > > from getting merged.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > > From: 张铎 <palomino219@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2016
8:32 PM
> > > > > > > > > > > To: dev@hbase.apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSSION] MR jobs started
by Master or
> RS
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > So what about a standalone service
other than master?
> You
> > > can
> > > > > use
> > > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > > own
> > > > > > > > > > > procedure store in that service?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > 2016-09-23 11:28 GMT+08:00 Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com
> >:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > An earlier implementation was
client driven.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > But with that approach, it is
hard to resume if there
> > is
> > > > > error
> > > > > > > > > midway.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Using Procedure V2 makes the backup
/ restore more
> > > robust.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Another consideration is for security.
It is hard to
> > > > enforce
> > > > > > > > security
> > > > > > > > > > (to
> > > > > > > > > > > > be implemented) for client driven
actions.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sep 22, 2016, at 8:15
PM, Andrew Purtell <
> > > > > > > > > > andrew.purtell@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > No, this misses Matteo's
finer point, which is
> > > "shelling
> > > > > out"
> > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > master directly to run MR is a
first. Why not drive
> > this
> > > > > with a
> > > > > > > > > utility
> > > > > > > > > > > > derived from Tool?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sep 22, 2016, at 7:57
PM, Vladimir Rodionov <
> > > > > > > > > > vladrodionov@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> In our production
cluster,  it is a common case
> we
> > > > just
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > HDFS
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> HBase deployed.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> If our Master/RS
depend on MR framework
> > (especially
> > > > some
> > > > > > > > > features
> > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> have not used
at all),  it introduced another
> cost
> > > for
> > > > > > > > maintain.
> > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> don't think it
is a good idea.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> So , you are not backup
users in this case. Many
> our
> > > > > > customers
> > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > full
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> stack deployed and
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> want see backup to be
a standard feature. Besides
> > > this,
> > > > > > > nothing
> > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > happen
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> in your cluster
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> if you won't be doing
backups.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> This discussion (we do
not want see M/R
> dependency)
> > > goes
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > nowhere.
> > > > > > > > > > > We
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> asked already, at least
twice, to suggest another
> > > > > framework
> > > > > > > > (other
> > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > M/R)
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> for bulk data copy with
*conversion*. Still
> waiting
> > > for
> > > > > > > > > suggestions.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> -Vlad
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016
at 7:49 PM, Ted Yu <
> > > > > > yuzhihong@gmail.com
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> If MR framework is
not deployed in the cluster,
> > hbase
> > > > > still
> > > > > > > > > > functions
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> normally (post merge).
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> In terms of build
time dependency, we have long
> > been
> > > > > > > depending
> > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> mapreduce. Take a
look at ExportSnapshot.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Cheers
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016
at 7:42 PM, Heng Chen <
> > > > > > > > > > heng.chen.1986@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> In our production
cluster,  it is a common case
> we
> > > > just
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > HDFS
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> HBase deployed.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> If our Master/RS
depend on MR framework
> > (especially
> > > > some
> > > > > > > > > features
> > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> have not used
at all),  it introduced another
> cost
> > > for
> > > > > > > > maintain.
> > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> don't think it
is a good idea.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> 2016-09-23 10:28
GMT+08:00 张铎 <
> > > palomino219@gmail.com
> > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> To be specific,
for example, our nice
> > > Backup/Restore
> > > > > > > feature,
> > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> think
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> this is not
a core feature of HBase, then we
> > could
> > > > make
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > depend
> > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> MR,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> and start
a standalone BackupManager instance
> > that
> > > > > > submits
> > > > > > > MR
> > > > > > > > > > jobs
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> do
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> periodical
maintenance job. And if we think
> this
> > > is a
> > > > > > core
> > > > > > > > > > feature
> > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> everyone
should use it, then we'd better
> > implement
> > > it
> > > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > MR
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> dependency,
like DLS.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Thanks.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> 2016-09-23
10:11 GMT+08:00 张铎 <
> > > palomino219@gmail.com
> > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> I‘m
-1 on let master or rs launch MR jobs. It
> is
> > > OK
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > our
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> features
depend on MR but I think the bottom
> > line
> > > is
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> launch
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> the jobs
from outside manually or by other
> > > services.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> 2016-09-23
9:47 GMT+08:00 Andrew Purtell <
> > > > > > > > > > > andrew.purtell@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Ok,
got it. Well "shelling out" is on the
> line
> > I
> > > > > think,
> > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > fair
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> question.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Can
this be driven by a utility derived from
> > Tool
> > > > > like
> > > > > > > our
> > > > > > > > > > other
> > > > > > > > > > > MR
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> apps?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> The
issue is needing the AccessController to
> > > decide
> > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > allowed?
> > > > > > > > > > > But
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> nothing
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> prevents
the user from running the job
> > > > > > > > > manually/independently,
> > > > > > > > > > > > right?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
On Sep 22, 2016, at 3:44 PM, Matteo
> Bertozzi <
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> theo.bertozzi@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
just a remark. my query was not about tools
> > > using
> > > > MR
> > > > > > > > > > (everyone i
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> think
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> is
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
ok with those).
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
the topic was about: "are we ok with running
> > MR
> > > > jobs
> > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > Master
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> and
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> RSs
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
code?" since this will be the first time we
> do
> > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
Matteo
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 2:49 PM, Devaraj
> Das
> > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> ddas@hortonworks.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
Very much agree; for tools like
> > ExportSnapshot
> > > /
> > > > > > > Backup /
> > > > > > > > > > > > Restore,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> it's
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
fine to be dependent on MR. MR is the right
> > > > > framework
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > such.
> > > > > > > > > > > > We
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> should
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
also do compactions using MR (just saying
> :)
> > )
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
From: Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2016 2:00 PM
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
To: dev@hbase.apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSSION] MR jobs started
> by
> > > > Master
> > > > > > or
> > > > > > > RS
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
I agree - backup / restore is in the same
> > > > category
> > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > import
> > > > > > > > > > /
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> export.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 1:58 PM, Andrew
> > > Purtell <
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> andrew.purtell@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
Backup is extra tooling around core in my
> > > > opinion.
> > > > > > > Like
> > > > > > > > > > import
> > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> export.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
Or the optional MOB tool. It's fine.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
On Sep 22, 2016, at 1:50 PM, Matteo
> > Bertozzi
> > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> mbertozzi@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
What's the latest opinion around running
> MR
> > > > jobs
> > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > hbase
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> (Master
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> or
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
RS)?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
I remember in the past that there was
> > > > discussion
> > > > > > > about
> > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> having
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> MR
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
has
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
direct dependency of hbase.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
I think some of discussion where around
> MOB
> > > > that
> > > > > > had
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > MR
> > > > > > > > > > job
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
compact,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
that later was transformed in a non-MR
> job
> > to
> > > > be
> > > > > > > > merged,
> > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > think
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> we
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
had a
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
similar discussion for log split/replay.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
the latest is the new Backup feature
> > > > > (HBASE-7912),
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > runs
> > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> MR
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> job
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
from
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
the master to copy data or restore data.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
(backup is also "not really core" as in..
> > if
> > > > you
> > > > > > > don't
> > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> backup
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
you'll
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
not end up running MR jobs, but this was
> > > > probably
> > > > > > > true
> > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > MOB
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> as
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> in
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
"if
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
you don't enable MOB you don't need MR")
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
any thoughts? do we a rule that says "we
> > > don't
> > > > > want
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> hbase
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> run
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
MR
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
jobs, only tool started manually by the
> > user
> > > > can
> > > > > do
> > > > > > > > > that".
> > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> can
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> we
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
start
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
adding MR calls around without problems?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

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