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 Tue, 11 Oct 2016 20:57:20 GMT
Or you can apply 14123-master.v29.full.txt (HBASE-14123) to current master.

-Vlad

On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 1:50 PM, Vladimir Rodionov <vladrodionov@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Michael,
>
> Its in HBASE-7912
>
> This is tip of git log:
>
> commit a072f6f49a26a7259ff2aaef6cb56d85eb592482
> Author: Frank Welsch <fwelsch@jps.net>
> Date:   Fri Sep 23 18:00:42 2016 -0400
>
>     HBASE-16574 Book updates for backup and restore
>
> commit b14e2ab1c24e65ff88dd4c579acf83cb4ed0605e
> Author: tedyu <yuzhihong@gmail.com>
> Date:   Wed Oct 5 16:29:40 2016 -0700
>
>     HBASE-16727 Backup refactoring: remove MR dependencies from HMaster
> (Vladimir Rodionov)
>
> -Vlad
>
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Stack <stack@duboce.net> wrote:
>
>> Which branch do I check out to try it? HBASE-7912 is not it. I don't see
>> an
>> HBASE-16727...
>> Thanks,
>> M
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 11:41 AM, Vladimir Rodionov <
>> vladrodionov@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > The last patch is on review board:
>> > https://reviews.apache.org/r/52748
>> >
>> > On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 3:52 PM, Vladimir Rodionov <
>> vladrodionov@gmail.com
>> > >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > >> How hard to put in an hbase-backup module? hbase-server is fat
>> enough
>> > > >> already. Could be done as a follow-up.
>> > >
>> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-16727?
>> > > focusedCommentId=15531237&page=com.atlassian.jira.
>> > > plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-15531237
>> > >
>> > > Can we do merge first? Then we can discuss separate module.
>> > >
>> > > -Vlad
>> > >
>> > > On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 3:44 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> Looks like the first quote was cut off.
>> > >> The original sentence was:
>> > >>
>> > >> bq. no mapreduce job launched from master or region server.
>> > >>
>> > >> mapreduce job is launched from the node where command line tool is
>> run.
>> > >>
>> > >> On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 3:38 PM, Stack <stack@duboce.net> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> > bq. launched from master or region server.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > What does this mean please? Has to be run from Master or
>> RegionServer?
>> > >> Can
>> > >> > it be run from another node altogether?
>> > >> >
>> > >> > On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Vladimir Rodionov <
>> > >> vladrodionov@gmail.com
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > wrote:
>> > >> >
>> > >> > > >> mapreduce dependency has been moved to client side - no
>> mapreduce
>> > >> job
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > 1. We have no code in the client module anymore, due to
>> dependency
>> > on
>> > >> > > internal server API (HFile and WAL access).
>> > >> > > 2. Backup/ restore are client - driven operations, but all the
>> code
>> > >> > resides
>> > >> > > in the server module
>> > >> > >
>> > >> >
>> > >> > How hard to put in an hbase-backup module? hbase-server is fat
>> enough
>> > >> > already. Could be done as a follow-up.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Thanks,
>> > >> > St.Ack
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> > > 3. No MR in Master, no procedure - driven execution.
>> > >> > > 4. Old good MR from command-line.
>> > >> > > 5. Security was simplified and now only super-user is allowed to
>> run
>> > >> > > backup/restores.
>> > >> > > 6. HBase Backup API was gone due to 1. Now only command-line
>> access
>> > to
>> > >> > > backup tools.
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > These consequences of refactoring has been discussed in
>> HBASE-16727.
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > -Vlad
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 1:31 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > > Reviving this thread.
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > The following has taken place:
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > mapreduce dependency has been moved to client side - no
>> mapreduce
>> > >> job
>> > >> > > > launched from master or region server.
>> > >> > > > document patch (HBASE-16574) has been integrated.
>> > >> > > > Updated mega patch has been attached to HBASE-14123: this
>> covers
>> > the
>> > >> > > > refactor in #1 above and the protobuf 3 merge.
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > If community has more feedback on the merge proposal, I would
>> love
>> > >> to
>> > >> > > hear
>> > >> > > > it.
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > Thanks
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 10:31 AM, Sean Busbey <
>> > busbey@cloudera.com>
>> > >> > > wrote:
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > > I'd like to see the docs proposed on HBASE-16574 integrated
>> into
>> > >> our
>> > >> > > > > project's documentation prior to merge.
>> > >> > > > >
>> > >> > > > > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 9:02 AM, Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com
>> >
>> > >> wrote:
>> > >> > > > > > This feature can be marked experimental due to some
>> > limitations
>> > >> > such
>> > >> > > as
>> > >> > > > > > security.
>> > >> > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > Your previous round of comments have been addressed.
>> > >> > > > > > Command line tool has gone through:
>> > >> > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > HBASE-16620 Fix backup command-line tool usability issues
>> > >> > > > > > HBASE-16655 hbase backup describe with incorrect backup id
>> > >> results
>> > >> > in
>> > >> > > > NPE
>> > >> > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > The updated doc has been attached to HBASE-16574.
>> > >> > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > Cheers
>> > >> > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 8:53 AM, Stack <stack@duboce.net>
>> > >> wrote:
>> > >> > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > >> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 7:43 AM, Ted Yu <
>> yuzhihong@gmail.com
>> > >
>> > >> > > wrote:
>> > >> > > > > >>
>> > >> > > > > >> > Are there more (review) comments ?
>> > >> > > > > >> >
>> > >> > > > > >> >
>> > >> > > > > >> Are outstanding comments addressed?
>> > >> > > > > >>
>> > >> > > > > >> I don't see answer to my 'is this experimental/will it be
>> > >> marked
>> > >> > > > > >> experimental' question.
>> > >> > > > > >>
>> > >> > > > > >> I ran into some issues trying to use the feature and
>> > suggested
>> > >> > that
>> > >> > > a
>> > >> > > > > >> feature likes this needs polish else it'll just rot,
>> unused.
>> > >> Has
>> > >> > > > polish
>> > >> > > > > >> been applied? All ready for another 'user' test? Suggest
>> that
>> > >> you
>> > >> > > > update
>> > >> > > > > >> here going forward for the benefit of those trying to
>> follow
>> > >> along
>> > >> > > and
>> > >> > > > > who
>> > >> > > > > >> are not watching JIRA change fly-by.
>> > >> > > > > >>
>> > >> > > > > >> It looks like doc got a revision -- I have to check -- to
>> > take
>> > >> on
>> > >> > > > > >> suggestion made above but again, suggest, that this thread
>> > gets
>> > >> > > > updated.
>> > >> > > > > >>
>> > >> > > > > >> Thanks,
>> > >> > > > > >> St.Ack
>> > >> > > > > >>
>> > >> > > > > >>
>> > >> > > > > >>
>> > >> > > > > >> > Thanks
>> > >> > > > > >> >
>> > >> > > > > >> > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:02 AM, Devaraj Das <
>> > >> > > ddas@hortonworks.com
>> > >> > > > >
>> > >> > > > > >> > wrote:
>> > >> > > > > >> >
>> > >> > > > > >> > > Just reviving this thread. Thanks Sean, Stack, Dima,
>> and
>> > >> > others
>> > >> > > > for
>> > >> > > > > the
>> > >> > > > > >> > > thorough reviews and testing. Thanks Ted and Vlad for
>> > >> taking
>> > >> > > care
>> > >> > > > of
>> > >> > > > > >> the
>> > >> > > > > >> > > feedback. Are we all good to do the merge now? Rather
>> do
>> > >> > sooner
>> > >> > > > than
>> > >> > > > > >> > later.
>> > >> > > > > >> > > ________________________________________
>> > >> > > > > >> > > From: saint.ack@gmail.com <saint.ack@gmail.com> on
>> > behalf
>> > >> of
>> > >> > > > Stack
>> > >> > > > > <
>> > >> > > > > >> > > stack@duboce.net>
>> > >> > > > > >> > > Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 1:18 PM
>> > >> > > > > >> > > To: HBase Dev List
>> > >> > > > > >> > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSSION] Merge Backup / Restore -
>> Branch
>> > >> > > > HBASE-7912
>> > >> > > > > >> > >
>> > >> > > > > >> > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 12:19 PM, Ted Yu <
>> > >> yuzhihong@gmail.com
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > > > wrote:
>> > >> > > > > >> > >
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > Mega patch (rev 18) is on HBASE-14123.
>> > >> > > > > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > Please comment on HBASE-14123 on how you want to
>> > review.
>> > >> > > > > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > > >> > >
>> > >> > > > > >> > >
>> > >> > > > > >> > > Yeah. That was my lost tab. Last rb was 6 months ago.
>> > >> Suggest
>> > >> > > > > updating
>> > >> > > > > >> > it.
>> > >> > > > > >> > > RB is pretty good for review. Patch is only 1.5M so
>> > should
>> > >> be
>> > >> > > > fine.
>> > >> > > > > >> > >
>> > >> > > > > >> > > St.Ack
>> > >> > > > > >> > >
>> > >> > > > > >> > >
>> > >> > > > > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > Thanks
>> > >> > > > > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 12:15 PM, Stack <
>> > >> stack@duboce.net>
>> > >> > > > wrote:
>> > >> > > > > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > On review of the 'patch', do I just compare the
>> > branch
>> > >> to
>> > >> > > > > master or
>> > >> > > > > >> > is
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > there a megapatch posted somewhere (I think I saw
>> one
>> > >> but
>> > >> > it
>> > >> > > > > seemed
>> > >> > > > > >> > > stale
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > and then I 'lost' the tab). Sorry for dumb
>> question.
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > St.Ack
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > >
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 12:01 PM, Stack <
>> > >> stack@duboce.net
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > > > wrote:
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > >
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > > Late to the game. A few comments after rereading
>> > this
>> > >> > > thread
>> > >> > > > > as a
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > 'user'.
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > > + Before merge, a user-facing feature like this
>> > >> should
>> > >> > > work
>> > >> > > > > (If
>> > >> > > > > >> > this
>> > >> > > > > >> > > is
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > "higher-bar
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > > for new features", bring it on -- smile).
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > > + As a user, I tried the branch with tools after
>> > >> > reviewing
>> > >> > > > the
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > just-posted
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > > doc. I had an 'interesting' experience (left
>> > >> comments up
>> > >> > > on
>> > >> > > > > >> > issue). I
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > think
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > > the tooling/doc. important to get right. If it
>> > breaks
>> > >> > > easily
>> > >> > > > > or
>> > >> > > > > >> is
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > > inconsistent (or lacks 'polish'), operators will
>> > >> judge
>> > >> > the
>> > >> > > > > whole
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > > backup/restore tooling chain as not trustworthy
>> and
>> > >> > > abandon
>> > >> > > > > it.
>> > >> > > > > >> > Lets
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > not
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > > have this happen to this feature.
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > > + Matteo's suggestion (with a helpful starter
>> list)
>> > >> that
>> > >> > > > there
>> > >> > > > > >> > needs
>> > >> > > > > >> > > to
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > be
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > > explicit qualification on what is actually being
>> > >> > delivered
>> > >> > > > --
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > including a
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > > listing of limitations (some look serious such
>> as
>> > >> data
>> > >> > > bleed
>> > >> > > > > from
>> > >> > > > > >> > > other
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > > regions in WALs, but maybe I don't care for my
>> use
>> > >> > > case...)
>> > >> > > > --
>> > >> > > > > >> > needs
>> > >> > > > > >> > > to
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > > accompany the merge. Lets fold them into the
>> user
>> > >> doc.
>> > >> > in
>> > >> > > > the
>> > >> > > > > >> > > technical
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > > overview area as suggested so user expectations
>> are
>> > >> > > properly
>> > >> > > > > >> > managed
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > > (otherwise, they expect the world and will just
>> > give
>> > >> up
>> > >> > > when
>> > >> > > > > we
>> > >> > > > > >> > fall
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > > short). Vladimir did a list of what is in each
>> of
>> > the
>> > >> > > phases
>> > >> > > > > >> above
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > which
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > > would serve as a good start.
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > > + Is this feature 'experimental' (Matteo asks
>> > above).
>> > >> > I'd
>> > >> > > > > prefer
>> > >> > > > > >> it
>> > >> > > > > >> > > is
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > > not. If it is, it should be labelled all over
>> that
>> > >> it is
>> > >> > > > so. I
>> > >> > > > > >> see
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > current
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > > state called out as a '... technical preview
>> > >> feature'.
>> > >> > > Does
>> > >> > > > > this
>> > >> > > > > >> > mean
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > > not-for-users?
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > > St.Ack
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 8:03 AM, Ted Yu <
>> > >> > > > yuzhihong@gmail.com>
>> > >> > > > > >> > wrote:
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> Sean:
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> Do you have more comments ?
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >>
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> Cheers
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >>
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Vladimir
>> Rodionov
>> > <
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > vladrodionov@gmail.com
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> >
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> wrote:
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >>
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > Sean,
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> >
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > Backup/Restore can fail due to various
>> reasons:
>> > >> > network
>> > >> > > > > outage
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > (cluster
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > wide), various time-outs in HBase and HDFS
>> > layer,
>> > >> M/R
>> > >> > > > > failure
>> > >> > > > > >> > due
>> > >> > > > > >> > > to
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> "HDFS
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > exceeded quota", user error (manual deletion
>> of
>> > >> data)
>> > >> > > and
>> > >> > > > > so
>> > >> > > > > >> on
>> > >> > > > > >> > so
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > on.
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> That
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > is impossible to enumerate all possible
>> types of
>> > >> > > failures
>> > >> > > > > in a
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> distributed
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > system - that is not our goal/task.
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> >
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > We focus completely on backup system table
>> > >> > consistency
>> > >> > > > in a
>> > >> > > > > >> > > presence
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > of
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> any
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > type of failure. That is what I call
>> "tolerance
>> > to
>> > >> > > > > failures".
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> >
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > On a failure:
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> >
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > BACKUP. All backup system information (prior
>> to
>> > >> > backup)
>> > >> > > > > will
>> > >> > > > > >> be
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > restored
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > and all temporary data, related to a failed
>> > >> session,
>> > >> > in
>> > >> > > > > HDFS
>> > >> > > > > >> > will
>> > >> > > > > >> > > be
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > deleted
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > RESTORE. We do not care about system data,
>> > because
>> > >> > > > restore
>> > >> > > > > >> does
>> > >> > > > > >> > > not
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> change
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > it. Temporary data in HDFS will be cleaned up
>> > and
>> > >> > table
>> > >> > > > > will
>> > >> > > > > >> be
>> > >> > > > > >> > > in a
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> state
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > back to where it was before operation
>> started.
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> >
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > This is what user should expect in case of a
>> > >> failure.
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> >
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > -Vlad
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> >
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> >
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > -Vlad
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> >
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 12:56 PM, Sean Busbey
>> <
>> > >> > > > > >> busbey@apache.org
>> > >> > > > > >> > >
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > wrote:
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> >
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > Failing in a consistent way, with docs that
>> > >> explain
>> > >> > > the
>> > >> > > > > >> > various
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > expected failures would be sufficient.
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 12:16 PM, Vladimir
>> > >> Rodionov
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > <vladrodionov@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > Do not worry Sean, doc is coming today
>> as a
>> > >> > preview
>> > >> > > > and
>> > >> > > > > >> our
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > writer
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > Frank
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > will be working on a putting  it into
>> Apache
>> > >> > repo.
>> > >> > > > > >> Timeline
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > depends
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> on
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > Franks schedule but I hope we will get it
>> > >> rather
>> > >> > > > sooner
>> > >> > > > > >> than
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > later.
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > As for failure testing, we are focusing
>> only
>> > >> on a
>> > >> > > > > >> consistent
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > state
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> of
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > backup system data in a presence of any
>> type
>> > >> of
>> > >> > > > > failures,
>> > >> > > > > >> We
>> > >> > > > > >> > > are
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > not
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > going
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > to implement  anything more "fancy", than
>> > >> that.
>> > >> > We
>> > >> > > > > allow
>> > >> > > > > >> > both:
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> backup
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > and
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > restore to fail. What we do not allow is
>> to
>> > >> have
>> > >> > > > system
>> > >> > > > > >> data
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> corrupted.
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > Will it suffice for you? Do you have any
>> > other
>> > >> > > > > concerns,
>> > >> > > > > >> you
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > want
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> us to
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > address?
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > -Vlad
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 10:56 AM, Sean
>> > Busbey <
>> > >> > > > > >> > > busbey@apache.org
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > >
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > wrote:
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> "docs will come to Apache soon" does not
>> > >> address
>> > >> > > my
>> > >> > > > > >> concern
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > around
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > docs
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > at
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> all, unless said docs have already made
>> it
>> > >> into
>> > >> > > the
>> > >> > > > > >> project
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > repo. I
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > don't
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> want third party resources for using a
>> > major
>> > >> and
>> > >> > > > > >> important
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > feature
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> of
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > the
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> project, I want us to provide end users
>> > with
>> > >> > what
>> > >> > > > they
>> > >> > > > > >> need
>> > >> > > > > >> > > to
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > get
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> the
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > job
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> done.
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >>
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> I see some calls for patience on the
>> > failure
>> > >> > > > testing,
>> > >> > > > > but
>> > >> > > > > >> > the
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> appeal
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > to
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > us
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> having done a bad job of requiring
>> proper
>> > >> tests
>> > >> > of
>> > >> > > > > >> previous
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> features
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > just
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> makes me more concerned about not
>> getting
>> > >> them
>> > >> > > > here. I
>> > >> > > > > >> > don't
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > want
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> to
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > set
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> yet another bad example that will then
>> be
>> > >> > pointed
>> > >> > > to
>> > >> > > > > in
>> > >> > > > > >> the
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > future.
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >>
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> On Sep 8, 2016 10:50, "Ted Yu" <
>> > >> > > yuzhihong@gmail.com
>> > >> > > > >
>> > >> > > > > >> > wrote:
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >>
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > Is there any concern which is not
>> > >> addressed ?
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> >
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > Do we need another Vote thread ?
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> >
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > Thanks
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> >
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 9:21 AM, Andrew
>> > >> > Purtell <
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> apurtell@apache.org
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > wrote:
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> >
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > Vlad,
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > >
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > I apologize for using the term
>> > >> 'half-baked'
>> > >> > > in a
>> > >> > > > > way
>> > >> > > > > >> > that
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > could
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > seem a
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > description of HBASE-7912. I meant
>> that
>> > >> as a
>> > >> > > > > general
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> hypothetical.
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > >
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 9:36 AM,
>> > Vladimir
>> > >> > > > Rodionov
>> > >> > > > > <
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > vladrodionov@gmail.com>
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > wrote:
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > >
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > >> I'm not sure that "There is
>> > already
>> > >> > lots
>> > >> > > of
>> > >> > > > > >> > > half-baked
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> code
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > in
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > the
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > branch,
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > so what's the harm in adding
>> more?"
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > I meant - not production - ready
>> yet.
>> > >> This
>> > >> > > is
>> > >> > > > > 2.0
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > development
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > branch
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > and,
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > hence many features are in works,
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > not being tested well etc. I do
>> not
>> > >> > consider
>> > >> > > > > backup
>> > >> > > > > >> > as
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > half
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > baked
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > feature -
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > it has passed our internal QA and
>> has
>> > >> very
>> > >> > > > good
>> > >> > > > > >> doc,
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > which
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > we
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > will
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > provide
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > to Apache shortly.
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > -Vlad
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 9:13 AM,
>> > Andrew
>> > >> > > > Purtell <
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > apurtell@apache.org>
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > wrote:
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > We shouldn't admit half baked
>> > changes
>> > >> > that
>> > >> > > > > won't
>> > >> > > > > >> be
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> finished.
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> However
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > in
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > this case the crew working on
>> this
>> > >> > feature
>> > >> > > > are
>> > >> > > > > >> long
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > timers
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> and
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > less
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > likely
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > than just about anyone to leave
>> > >> > something
>> > >> > > > in a
>> > >> > > > > >> half
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > baked
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > state. Of
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > course
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > there is no guarantee how
>> anything
>> > >> will
>> > >> > > turn
>> > >> > > > > out,
>> > >> > > > > >> > > but I
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > am
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > willing
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> to
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > take
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > a little on faith if they feel
>> > their
>> > >> > best
>> > >> > > > path
>> > >> > > > > >> > > forward
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > now
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> is
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > to
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > merge
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > to
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > trunk. I only wish I had
>> bandwidth
>> > to
>> > >> > have
>> > >> > > > > done
>> > >> > > > > >> > some
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > real
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > kicking
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> of
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > the
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > tires by now. Maybe this week.
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > >
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > (Yes, I'm using some of that
>> time
>> > for
>> > >> > this
>> > >> > > > > email
>> > >> > > > > >> > :-)
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > but
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > I
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > type
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > fast.)
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > >
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > That said, I would like to
>> agitate
>> > >> for
>> > >> > > > making
>> > >> > > > > 2.0
>> > >> > > > > >> > > more
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > real
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > and
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> spend
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > some
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > time on it now that I'm winding
>> > down
>> > >> > with
>> > >> > > > > 0.98. I
>> > >> > > > > >> > > think
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> that
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > means
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > branching for 2.0 real soon now
>> and
>> > >> even
>> > >> > > > > evicting
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > things
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> from
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > 2.0
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > branch
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > that aren't finished or stable,
>> > >> leaving
>> > >> > > them
>> > >> > > > > only
>> > >> > > > > >> > > once
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> again
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > in
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > the
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > master
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > branch. Or, maybe just evicting
>> > them.
>> > >> > > Let's
>> > >> > > > > take
>> > >> > > > > >> it
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > case
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > by
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > case.
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > >
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > I think this feature can come in
>> > >> > > relatively
>> > >> > > > > >> safely.
>> > >> > > > > >> > > As
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> added
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > insurance,
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > let's admit the possibility it
>> > could
>> > >> be
>> > >> > > > > reverted
>> > >> > > > > >> on
>> > >> > > > > >> > > the
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > 2.0
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > branch
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> if
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > folks
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > working on stabilizing 2.0
>> decide
>> > to
>> > >> > evict
>> > >> > > > it
>> > >> > > > > >> > because
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > it
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > is
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > unfinished
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > or
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > unstable, because that certainly
>> > can
>> > >> > > > happen. I
>> > >> > > > > >> > would
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> expect if
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > talk
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > like
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > that starts, we'd get help
>> > finishing
>> > >> or
>> > >> > > > > >> stabilizing
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > what's
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > under
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > discussion
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > for revert. Or, we'd have a
>> revert.
>> > >> > Either
>> > >> > > > way
>> > >> > > > > >> the
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > outcome
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> is
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > acceptable.
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > >
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > >
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 8:56 AM,
>> > Dima
>> > >> > > Spivak
>> > >> > > > <
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > dimaspivak@apache.org
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> >
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > wrote:
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > >
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > I'm not sure that "There is
>> > already
>> > >> > lots
>> > >> > > > of
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > half-baked
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> code
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > in
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> the
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > branch,
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > so what's the harm in adding
>> > more?"
>> > >> > is a
>> > >> > > > > good
>> > >> > > > > >> > code
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > commit
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > philosophy
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > for
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > a
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > fault-tolerant distributed
>> data
>> > >> store.
>> > >> > > ;)
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > More seriously, a lack of test
>> > >> > coverage
>> > >> > > > for
>> > >> > > > > >> > > existing
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > features
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > shouldn't
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > be
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > used as justification for
>> > >> introducing
>> > >> > > new
>> > >> > > > > >> > features
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > with
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> the
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > same
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > shortcomings. Ultimately, it's
>> > the
>> > >> end
>> > >> > > > user
>> > >> > > > > who
>> > >> > > > > >> > > will
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > feel
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > the
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> pain,
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > so
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > shouldn't we do everything we
>> can
>> > >> to
>> > >> > > > > mitigate
>> > >> > > > > >> > that?
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > -Dima
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 8:46
>> AM,
>> > >> > Vladimir
>> > >> > > > > >> > Rodionov <
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > vladrodionov@gmail.com>
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > wrote:
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > Sean,
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > * 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?
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > -Vlad
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > 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.
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > >
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > >
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > >
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > --
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > Best regards,
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > >
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > >    - Andy
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > >
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > Problems worthy of attack prove
>> > their
>> > >> > > worth
>> > >> > > > by
>> > >> > > > > >> > > hitting
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> back. -
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > Piet
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > Hein
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > (via Tom White)
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > >
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > >
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > >
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > >
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > --
>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > 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