Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Received: from cust-asf.ponee.io (cust-asf.ponee.io [163.172.22.183]) by cust-asf2.ponee.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id F27D3200B78 for ; Fri, 2 Sep 2016 17:51:18 +0200 (CEST) Received: by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) id F1017160AAE; Fri, 2 Sep 2016 15:51:18 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id 1E6DB160A8C for ; Fri, 2 Sep 2016 17:51:17 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 12238 invoked by uid 500); 2 Sep 2016 15:51:17 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@hbase.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@hbase.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@hbase.apache.org Received: (qmail 12226 invoked by uid 99); 2 Sep 2016 15:51:16 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd3-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 02 Sep 2016 15:51:16 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd3-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd3-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id 5C90318A5A3 for ; Fri, 2 Sep 2016 15:51:16 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd3-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.179 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.179 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=disabled Authentication-Results: spamd3-us-west.apache.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mx2-lw-eu.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd3-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.10]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XEPm6koffs4V for ; Fri, 2 Sep 2016 15:51:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-wm0-f41.google.com (mail-wm0-f41.google.com [74.125.82.41]) by mx2-lw-eu.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx2-lw-eu.apache.org) with ESMTPS id 471D85F237 for ; Fri, 2 Sep 2016 15:51:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wm0-f41.google.com with SMTP id c133so36019333wmd.1 for ; Fri, 02 Sep 2016 08:51:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=5H9NIQsCXOqf3Pc8ItdjW0ub/0GHoAltfmJsAisgUc4=; b=MZ8F27wMVpvzkkdJaYVNGujfDBj5zEadZ1Kcql16xGk611AYUSOrPsffTbmGV+xJTj uGXDUb4jApPRG/F+GPABWlbEez2+YmEjtIzNHxp4zM3+HGZKEcZVPhdYOdDOAtM5TvrM pZ3K9VpVT6Tjn1rGcr8KOATCnZtIZ7W4iWBl3P/1woLMSv1PS4BezcQpaT3GBV/V8z9L ZMXyG7BNd6KFPCUwG00VhhHI9Y4Xo9nU1A+4DUP2PqOl82lLfuAXPf0IdxdRb+N0R9BG irTkGz9pZFqlI1xDJuMLSpzfovAEGlOkAJDN1hhapavWvm5dr9LGfpOt1JS7mzbQTPUI xV2A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=5H9NIQsCXOqf3Pc8ItdjW0ub/0GHoAltfmJsAisgUc4=; b=G8vfZDTJQK6q6F2HZKjBA4zVNSh91RLgMPx4pfd5SBFmRYk5RvZ4oOHp46rIsFDs3J yeTSwWcWXQcgz1dHNd8AZdFfw4oS5FAN6KqCr4hMRGn3I95TCyiV+cgo3IRf67TH8iqw 5TOlcXTaSkwuibZndzIXNSAJorP8o+BMnwCqGLO5IGh1BOa3t2FUtZpHOm0M9g0GpC8w PExryPTJolwaZW/ze3pT+L2E0fwKdyrDrimZ7WRq2iCaSCX8AdwSmIWuHWNLWAMWSvA9 q0aDs+u5rl6xUp9My/czXXRZMc1CVj9H09eIzhsJSJZtYBSAF71sEPM6+RBfX6QV17uI IFTg== X-Gm-Message-State: AE9vXwOmF+wYw3kjlLZJsILQ6RH6aYL37xpYa6weizUZFpMyoh61bRs8sYZxpIEbhxK5/c22ISspUOAS+8yZ+g== X-Received: by 10.28.35.193 with SMTP id j184mr3984538wmj.33.1472831472721; Fri, 02 Sep 2016 08:51:12 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.28.186.5 with HTTP; Fri, 2 Sep 2016 08:51:11 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <92C83CD0-100D-401F-8B2C-D5C0D80DBC91@gmail.com> From: Vladimir Rodionov Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2016 08:51:11 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [DISCUSSION] Merge Backup / Restore - Branch HBASE-7912 To: "dev@hbase.apache.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113d9d16bee50f053b884c8c archived-at: Fri, 02 Sep 2016 15:51:19 -0000 --001a113d9d16bee50f053b884c8c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Snapshot robustness is better now with introduction of region splits/merges on/off feature. Region splits during snapshots was the major problem. -Vlad On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 8:12 AM, Vladimir Rodionov wrote: > >>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 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 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 >> > 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 wrote: >> > >> >> > >> > Sean: >> > >> > Please see HBASE-14413 for the last question. >> > >> > >> > >> > FYI >> > >> > >> > >> > On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 9:24 AM, Sean Busbey >> > wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > > On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 12:59 PM, Vladimir Rodionov >> > >> > > 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 >> > >> > > --001a113d9d16bee50f053b884c8c--