hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Backup Implementation (WAS => Re: [DISCUSSION] MR jobs started by Master or RS)
Date Mon, 03 Oct 2016 22:05:28 GMT
This sounds good to me.
I'd be at least +0 as to merging the branch as long as we are not 'shelling
out' to MR from master.

> All or most of the Backup/Restore operations (especially the MR job
spawns) should be moved to the client.

We have a home grown backup solution at Salesforce that to a first order of
approximation is this. I would like to see something like this merged.

> In the future, if someone needs to support self-service operations (any
user can take a backup/restore his/her tables), we can discuss the "backup
service" or something else.

I can't commit the time of the team here (smile), but we always strive to
minimize the amount of local code we need to manage HBase. For example, we
use VerifyReplication and other tools that ship with HBase, and we have
contributed minor operational improvements as we've developed them (like
the region mover and canary stuff). I suspect we will have some adoption of
this tooling and further refinement insofar it fits into a backup workflow
at 30kft view using snapshots, replication (or file shipping), and WAL
replay.


On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 9:57 PM, Devaraj Das <ddas@hortonworks.com> wrote:

> Vlad, thinking about it a little more, since the master is not
> orchestrating the backup, let's make it dead simple as a first pass. I
> think we should do the following: All or most of the Backup/Restore
> operations (especially the MR job spawns) should be moved to the client.
> Ignore security for the moment - let's live with what we have as the
> current "limitation" for tools that need HDFS access - they need to run as
> hbase (or whatever the hbase daemons runs as). Consistency/cleanup needs to
> be handled as well as much as possible - if the client fails after
> initiating the backup/restore, who restores consistency in the hbase:backup
> table, or cleans up the half copied data in the hdfs dirs, etc.
> In the future, if someone needs to support self-service operations (any
> user can take a backup/restore his/her tables), we can discuss the "backup
> service" or something else.
> Folks - Stack / Andrew / Matteo / others, please speak up if you disagree
> with the above. Would like to get over this merge-to-master hump obviously.
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Vladimir Rodionov <vladrodionov@gmail.com>
> Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 11:48 AM
> To: dev@hbase.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Backup Implementation (WAS => Re: [DISCUSSION] MR jobs
> started by Master or RS)
>
> Ok, we had internal discussion and this is what we are suggesting now:
>
> 1. We will create separate module (hbase-backup) and move server-side code
> there.
> 2. Master and RS will be MR and backup free.
> 3. The code from Master will be moved into standalone service
> (BackupService) for procedure orchestration,
>      operation resume/abort and SECURITY. It means - one additional
> (process) similar to REST/Thrift server will be required
>     to operate backup.
>
> I would like to note that separate process running under hbase super user
> is required to implement security properly in a multi-tenant environment,
> otherwise, only hbase super user will be allowed to operate backups
>
> Please let us know, what do you think, HBase people :?
>
> -Vlad
>
>
>
> On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 2:49 PM, Stack <stack@duboce.net> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 9:58 AM, Andrew Purtell <
> andrew.purtell@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > At branch merge voting time now more eyes are getting on the design
> > issues
> > > with dissenting opinion emerging. This is the branch merge process
> > working
> > > as our community has designed it. Because this is the first full
> project
> > > review of the code and implementation I think we all have to be
> > flexible. I
> > > see the community as trying to narrow the technical objection at issue
> to
> > > the smallest possible scope. It's simple: don't call out to an external
> > > execution framework we don't own from core master (and by extension
> > > regionserver) code. We had this objection before to a proposed external
> > > compaction implementation for
> > > MOB so should not come as a surprise. Please let me know if I have
> > > misstated this.
> > >
> > >
> > The above is my understanding also.
> >
> >
> > > This would seem to require a modest refactor of coordination to move
> > > invocation of MR code out from any core code path. To restate what I
> > think
> > > is an emerging recommendation: Move cross HBase and MR coordination to
> a
> > > separate tool. This tool can ask the master to invoke procedures on the
> > > HBase side that do first mile export and last mile restore. (Internally
> > the
> > > tool can also use the procedure framework for state durability,
> perhaps,
> > > just a thought.) Then the tool can further drive the things done with
> MR
> > > like shipping data off cluster or moving remote data in place and
> > preparing
> > > it for import. These activities do not need procedure coordination and
> > > involvement of the HBase master. Only the first and last mile of the
> > > process needs atomicity within the HBase deploy. Please let me know if
> I
> > > have misstated this.
> > >
> > >
> > > Above is my understanding of our recommendation.
> >
> > St.Ack
> >
> >
> >
> > > > On Sep 24, 2016, at 8:17 AM, Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > bq. procedure gives you a retry mechanism on failure
> > > >
> > > > We do need this mechanism. Take a look at the multi-step
> > > > in FullTableBackupProcedure, etc.
> > > >
> > > > bq. let the user export it later when he wants
> > > >
> > > > This would make supporting security more complex (user A shouldn't be
> > > > exporting user B's backup). And it is not user friendly - at the time
> > > > backup request is issued, the following is specified:
> > > >
> > > > +          + " BACKUP_ROOT     The full root path to store the backup
> > > > image,\n"
> > > > +          + "                 the prefix can be hdfs, webhdfs or
> > gpfs\n"
> > > >
> > > > Backup root is an integral part of backup manifest.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 7:59 AM, Matteo Bertozzi <
> > > theo.bertozzi@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>> On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 7:19 AM, Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Ideally the export should have one job running which does the retry
> > (on
> > > >>> failed partition) itself.
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >> procedure gives you a retry mechanism on failure. if you don't use
> > that,
> > > >> than you don't need procedure.
> > > >> if you want you can start a procedure executor in a non master
> process
> > > (the
> > > >> hbase-procedure is a separate package and does not depend on
> master).
> > > but
> > > >> again, export seems a case where you don't need procedure.
> > > >>
> > > >> like snapshot, the logic may just be: ask the master to take a
> backup.
> > > and
> > > >> let the user export it later when he wants. so you avoid having a MR
> > job
> > > >> started by the master since people does not seems to like it.
> > > >>
> > > >> for restore (I think that is where you use the MR splitter) you can
> > > >> probably just have a backup ready (already splitted). there is
> > already a
> > > >> jira that should do that HBASE-14135. instead of doing the operation
> > of
> > > >> split/merge on restore. you consolidate the backup "offline" (mr job
> > > >> started by the user) and then ask to restore the backup.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 7:04 AM, Matteo Bertozzi <
> > > >> theo.bertozzi@gmail.com>
> > > >>> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> as far as I understand the code, you don't need procedure for the
> > > >> export
> > > >>>> itself.
> > > >>>> the export operation is already idempotent, since you are just
> > copying
> > > >>>> files.
> > > >>>> if the file exist and is complete (check length, checksum, ...)
> you
> > > can
> > > >>>> skip it,
> > > >>>> otherwise you'll send it over again.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> you need the proc for taking the backup and restoring,
> > > >>>> because you want to complete the operation and end up with a
> > > consistent
> > > >>>> state
> > > >>>> across the multiple components you are updating (meta, fs, ...)
> > > >>>> but again, for export you can just run the tool over and over
> until
> > > the
> > > >>>> operation succeed, and that should be ok.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Matteo
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 6:54 AM, Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Master is involved in this discussion because currently only
> Master
> > > >>>>> instantiates ProcedureExecutor which runs the 3 Procedures for
> > > >> backup /
> > > >>>>> restore.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> What if an optional standalone service which hosts
> > ProcedureExecutor
> > > >> is
> > > >>>>> used for this purpose ?
> > > >>>>> Would that have better chance of giving us middle ground so that
> we
> > > >> can
> > > >>>>> move this forward ?
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Cheers
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 5:15 PM, Stack <stack@duboce.net>
> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> (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?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
>



-- 
Best regards,

   - Andy

Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
(via Tom White)

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