hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stack <st...@duboce.net>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Backup/Restore feature for HBase 2.0, vote closing 3/11/2017
Date Fri, 17 Mar 2017 05:13:25 GMT
On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 10:01 AM, Vladimir Rodionov <vladrodionov@gmail.com>
wrote:

> v61 is against current master.
>
>
It was what I thought. I got confused by the hijacker.
St.Ack



> On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 7:18 AM, Stack <stack@duboce.net> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 11:38 PM, Vladimir Rodionov <
> > vladrodionov@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > >> I thought I was reviewing a patch that was against master
> > >
> > > Yes, it was against master. We used to develop in HBASE-7912 branch,
> but
> > it
> > > was abandoned 6-8 mo ago.
> > > This is why the only way to merge backup is to apply v61 directly to
> > master
> > > branch.
> > >
> > >
> > If you are saying that v61 is against a master of 6-8 months ago, then
> I'd
> > think this VOTE is premature. Don't you have a mountain of rebasing to do
> > before you can put your patch up for a vote?
> >
> > St.Ack
> >
> >
> >
> > > -Vlad
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 9:17 PM, Stack <stack@duboce.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 5:51 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Thanks for the vote, Josh.
> > > > >
> > > > > So far there have been 3 +1's (Enis', mine and Josh's)
> > > > >
> > > > > Should we start another thread on the procedure of merging or use
> > this
> > > > > thread ?
> > > > > Background:
> > > > > HBASE-7912 branch is way out of date.
> > > > > Latest rounds of mega patch were based on then-current master
> branch.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > 1. Vlad is running this VOTE, not you.
> > > > 2. Don't you need 3 PMC votes to merge? I count 2.
> > > > 3. You almost derailed the merge with your earlier interjection
> rushing
> > > to
> > > > take us in the wrong direction; you'd think you'd learn from your
> past
> > > > experience but here you are again w/ haste and rash summary.
> > > > 4. This vote has been awkward. Josh's note is considered and careful.
> > > You'd
> > > > think it could hang out there a while to see if draws a response
> rather
> > > > than rush to close.
> > > >
> > > > I thought I was reviewing a patch that was against master, not some
> > > version
> > > > of master from eons ago. Thats a problem. When was the last rebase?
> > > >
> > > > St.Ack
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Thanks
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 4:22 PM, Josh Elser <elserj@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Spent the day playing around with this on 6 nodes.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I've found some rough edges: some known (the docs blocker Vlad
> > > pointed
> > > > > > out) and some that I think are unknown (tooling is rough --
> > partially
> > > > > from
> > > > > > wrong help messages and, I think, changes in design like
> > > > Master-submitted
> > > > > > MR jobs).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But, Stack's assessment (and Andrew's reminder) that further
> > tweaking
> > > > > > would just throw us back into another review cycle is a real
> > concern.
> > > > > It's
> > > > > > unfortunate that this feature has lingered so long aside of
> master
> > to
> > > > get
> > > > > > to this point, but I don't see any realistic resolution to this
> > > problem
> > > > > > than a merge. In the future, this is something we'll have to try
> > > harder
> > > > > to
> > > > > > avoid letting happen (looking in the mirror with quota work...)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thankfully, I can help out with development/review on the
> > outstanding
> > > > > > blockers (notably, the two I pruned from Vlad's original of five
> --
> > > the
> > > > > > other three still seem to be improvements). In addition to these
> > > > > blockers,
> > > > > > I believe the documentation *must* be updated before a release to
> > > note
> > > > > that
> > > > > > this feature is still growing -- it does not feel like a quality
> > > > feature
> > > > > > that I've come to expect from this community. This isn't a knock
> on
> > > > Vlad
> > > > > > and company; this is a hard problem and one that I could not have
> > > done
> > > > > > better given time constraints, but it is also one that users will
> > > > demand
> > > > > > simplicity and the utmost correctness around. To this end, I will
> > > also
> > > > > try
> > > > > > to help out to smooth out these issues in the following 2.x
> > release.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So, this leaves me to say: +1 to merge with the caveat that the
> > docs
> > > > are
> > > > > > updated to make sure that any known, user-pitfalls are clearly
> > > > > documented.
> > > > > > This vote also comes with as real of a promise that I can make to
> > > help
> > > > > > avoid any issues with this feature that would prevent a 2.0
> > release.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks to all the giants whose shoulders I'm standing on to be
> able
> > > to
> > > > > > make this vote.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Andrew Purtell wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> Great, and I changed my vote to -0 because Stack made a good
> > > argument
> > > > > that
> > > > > >> making more changes would invalidate review up to this point,
> and
> > I
> > > > > trust
> > > > > >> this will be resolved before release.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 4:29 PM, Josh Elser<elserj@apache.org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Sorry Andrew, let me clarify as that didn't come out right.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> I didn't mean that isn't a conversation worth having _now_,
> just
> > > > that I
> > > > > >>> was intentionally avoiding it in my previous email because I
> > didn't
> > > > > >>> understand the scope of those issues that Vlad had identified.
> I
> > > > wanted
> > > > > >>> to
> > > > > >>> better understand what they were really meant for a user before
> > > > coming
> > > > > to
> > > > > >>> my own decision about whether or not I think they are blockers.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> That aside, I would agree with you that HBASE-15227 sounds
> like a
> > > > real
> > > > > >>> blocker. Forcing a new full backup for every table sounds
> really
> > > bad
> > > > --
> > > > > >>> that's not the kind of experience we'd want a user to have.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Andrew Purtell wrote:
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> I'm going to intentional avoid addressing the discussion of
> > > shipping
> > > > > >>>> partial features (related, but not relevant at the moment).
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> Then we are not having the same conversation, because it is
> > > > precisely
> > > > > >>>> because this is a vote for this feature to go into 2.0, which
> is
> > > > > already
> > > > > >>>> overdue, so should be released yesterday, that I took mention
> of
> > > > > >>>> "blocker"
> > > > > >>>> at face value. At least one of them seems to certainly
> approach
> > > this
> > > > > >>>> definition. It will be not user friendly, to say the least, to
> > use
> > > > > this
> > > > > >>>> in
> > > > > >>>> a large scale deployment with HBASE-15227 unfinished.
> > HBASE-15227
> > > > > >>>> currently
> > > > > >>>> has a severity of BLOCKER. Despite what is going on in our
> > > politics,
> > > > > >>>> words
> > > > > >>>> matter and we do not get to redefine them for convenience.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> Once this work is merged in, how is HBASE-15227 not a blocker
> > for
> > > > 2.0?
> > > > > >>>> Because Vlad offered to reduce its severity to make me feel
> > > better?
> > > > > >>>> Currently the description on the issue is "System must be
> > tolerant
> > > > to
> > > > > >>>> faults. Backup operations MUST be atomic (no partial
> completion
> > > > state
> > > > > in
> > > > > >>>> system table)" Sounds like a blocker to me, indeed. It is an
> > > honest
> > > > > >>>> assessment and I don't think anyone is doing the community a
> > favor
> > > > by
> > > > > >>>> trying to walk that back.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 1:57 PM, Josh Elser<elserj@apache.org
> >
> > > > >  wrote:
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> I took a moment to read through the "blockers" as originally
> > > > > identified
> > > > > >>>> by
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>> Vlad, and (to echo Enis' take) I read the majority of them as
> > > being
> > > > > >>>>> blockers not for the next release, but for a "full-fledged
> > > > feature".
> > > > > >>>>> I'm
> > > > > >>>>> going to intentional avoid addressing the discussion of
> > shipping
> > > > > >>>>> partial
> > > > > >>>>> features (related, but not relevant at the moment).
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> HBASE-15227 is actually the one that bothers me the most,
> with
> > > > > >>>>> HBASE-17133
> > > > > >>>>> coming in close behind. Vlad, is there any documentation you
> > can
> > > > > point
> > > > > >>>>> me
> > > > > >>>>> to about what the current issues are with the current
> > > > implementation?
> > > > > >>>>> For
> > > > > >>>>> example, what happens now if the system has some kind of
> > "partial
> > > > > >>>>> completion state"?
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> Documentation is one of those that is really hard to judge.
> We
> > > want
> > > > > to
> > > > > >>>>> get
> > > > > >>>>> this code out for people to use (and to free up our strained
> > dev
> > > > > >>>>> resources), but what good is some feature if the docs are
> > > > > >>>>> missing/incomplete?
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> I think I could stomach the docs being inaccurate (with a
> clear
> > > > > >>>>> disclaimer
> > > > > >>>>> that the chapter is incomplete -- that's a 5min task). But, I
> > > > think I
> > > > > >>>>> need
> > > > > >>>>> an answer about how the feature handles our common dist-sys
> > > > category
> > > > > of
> > > > > >>>>> problems before I can consider whether I'm ok with the
> feature
> > > > > hitting
> > > > > >>>>> 2.0...
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> I'll also try to throw up a few nodes and play with it to
> > address
> > > > the
> > > > > >>>>> problem as an (ignorant) user ;)
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> Andrew Purtell wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> I don't like that issues were identified as "blockers" but
> now
> > > > there
> > > > > is
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> an
> > > > > >>>>>> attempt to walk that back.
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> I don't like that development of this feature has lingered
> > for a
> > > > > long
> > > > > >>>>>> time
> > > > > >>>>>> in this unfinished state when this work could have been done
> > by
> > > > now,
> > > > > >>>>>> now
> > > > > >>>>>> that we are trying to get a 2.0 out the door. Because this
> is
> > a
> > > > > >>>>>> volunteer
> > > > > >>>>>> project I cannot make any demand that it should be done,
> but I
> > > can
> > > > > >>>>>> certainly look at the current state and be nonplussed. This
> > will
> > > > be
> > > > > >>>>>> yet
> > > > > >>>>>> another half finished thing in 2.0 when this merge happens.
> > > > Promises
> > > > > >>>>>> to
> > > > > >>>>>> finish the unfinished work are nice but not currency.
> Commits
> > > are
> > > > > >>>>>> currency.
> > > > > >>>>>> I hope at least the fault tolerance changes can be completed
> > and
> > > > > >>>>>> committed
> > > > > >>>>>> before we spin a 2.0 RC, and without causing a 2.0 release
> to
> > > slip
> > > > > >>>>>> further.
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> Also, marking something experimental should be done on the
> > > merits
> > > > of
> > > > > >>>>>> that
> > > > > >>>>>> evaluation, not simply to justify dropping unfinished work
> > into
> > > a
> > > > > >>>>>> release
> > > > > >>>>>> branch.
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> I will change my vote to -0.
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 4:05 PM, Enis Söztutar<
> > enis@apache.org>
> > > > > >>>>>>   wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> I think there is some misconception of using the term
> > "blockers"
> > > > for
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> referring to those jiras. My understanding is that those
> three
> > > > jiras
> > > > > >>>>>>> are
> > > > > >>>>>>> blockers for the backup functionality to be more mature and
> > > more
> > > > > >>>>>>> usable.
> > > > > >>>>>>> But they are not release blockers. Let's say we merged the
> > code
> > > > in,
> > > > > >>>>>>> and
> > > > > >>>>>>> for
> > > > > >>>>>>> some reason those did not get addressed in time. We can
> still
> > > do
> > > > > the
> > > > > >>>>>>> 2.0
> > > > > >>>>>>> release without having to wait for the commits. We can
> > instead
> > > > mark
> > > > > >>>>>>> the
> > > > > >>>>>>> "backup" feature as experimental with known issues and go
> on
> > > with
> > > > > the
> > > > > >>>>>>> release. In that sense they are not real release blockers.
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> We are proposing the merge at this time because of the
> above
> > > that
> > > > > >>>>>>> maintaining this in a branch is becoming extremely costly
> and
> > > not
> > > > > >>>>>>> productive for the HBase community. Realistically, we
> cannot
> > > have
> > > > > the
> > > > > >>>>>>> luxury of having to wait another couple of months and doing
> > yet
> > > > > >>>>>>> another
> > > > > >>>>>>> giant round of reviews because the code base is a moving
> > > target.
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> Enis
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 3:46 PM, Devaraj Das<
> > > > ddas@hortonworks.com>
> > > > > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> Vlad, on the first point, I think what Stack is saying is
> > that
> > > > > >>>>>>> creating
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> the new branch (as Ted did) ignores the feedback
> incorporated
> > > > thus
> > > > > >>>>>>>> far
> > > > > >>>>>>>> in
> > > > > >>>>>>>> the iterations of the mega-patch. That's a wrong way to
> go.
> > > > > >>>>>>>> On the separation into a backup module, again, that was
> > > reverted
> > > > > to
> > > > > >>>>>>>> ease
> > > > > >>>>>>>> reviews of the mega-patch, and was noted as work to be
> done
> > > > > later. I
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> think
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> Stack just wants to make the list of remaining work more
> > > complete
> > > > > by
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> citing
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> that as pending work.
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> ________________________________________
> > > > > >>>>>>>> From: Vladimir Rodionov<vladrodionov@gmail.com>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, March 13, 2017 3:09 PM
> > > > > >>>>>>>> To: dev@hbase.apache.org
> > > > > >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Backup/Restore feature for HBase 2.0,
> > vote
> > > > > >>>>>>>> closing
> > > > > >>>>>>>> 3/11/2017
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>     It ignores the feedback
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> If I "ignore" feedback, I put my comment - why? I am
> always
> > > > open
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> for
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> further discussions. If reviewer does not insist on a
> > > > particular
> > > > > >>>>>>>> request
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> -
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> it will be dropped. I think it is fair.
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> he list is incomplete because a bunch of
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> follow-ons came of the review cycle (including moving
> > > > > backup/restore
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> out
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> of
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> core to live in its own module).
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> For those who were not following our lengthy conversation
> > on
> > > a
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> review
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> board, separation of a backup code into a separate module
> > has
> > > > > been
> > > > > >>>>>>>> done last year, but has been reverted back by request of a
> > > > > reviewer.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> -Vladimir
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 2:23 PM, Stack<stack@duboce.net>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 9:09 PM, Stack<stack@duboce.net>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 6:01 PM, Ted Yu<
> yuzhihong@gmail.com
> > >
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>   wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> HBASE-14123 branch has been created, with Vlad's mega
> patch
> > > > v61.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> The patch put up for VOTE here was done on a branch. The
> > > call
> > > > to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> merge
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> seems to have been premature given the many cycles of
> > review
> > > > and
> > > > > >>>>>>>> test
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> that
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> happened subsequent (The cycles burned a bunch of dev
> > > > resource).
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> The patch as is is now in a state where it is too big
> for
> > > our
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> infra;
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> rb
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> and JIRA are creaking under the size and # of iterations.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> Adding finish of new JIRAs to this merge implies a new
> round
> > > of
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> review
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> test of an already massive patch. Who is going to do this
> > > work?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Going back to a new branch seems wrong route to take.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> St.Ack
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> To be more explicit, this patch was developed on a
> branch
> > > and
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> then a
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> bunch
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> of dev resources were burned getting it into a state where
> > it
> > > > > could
> > > > > >>>>>>>> be
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> merged to master. Going back to a branch to bulk up the
> > merge
> > > > so
> > > > > it
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> includes more JIRAs than the many it already incorporates
> > is
> > > > the
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> wrong
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> direction for us to be headed in. It ignores the feedback
> > > given
> > > > > and
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> work done by Vladimir slimming down an already over-broad
> > > > scope.
> > > > > It
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> is
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> also
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> predicated on abundant review and testing resource being
> on
> > > tap
> > > > to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> cycle
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> on
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> a feature that is useful, but non-core.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> The patch is ready for merge IMO. Geoffrey makes a nice
> > list
> > > of
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> what
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> is
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> still to do though IIRC, the list is incomplete because a
> > > bunch
> > > > > of
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> follow-ons came of the review cycle (including moving
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> backup/restore
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> out
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> of
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> core to live in its own module).
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> The patch needs three votes to merge. I am not against
> > merge
> > > > but
> > > > > I
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> am
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> not
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> voting for the patch because I do have any more time to
> > spend
> > > on
> > > > > >>>>>>>> this
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> non-core feature and feel that a vote will have me assume
> a
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> responsibility
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> I will not shirk.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> S
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> FYI
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 3:30 PM, Ted Yu<
> > yuzhihong@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the feedback, Andrew.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> How about the following plan:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> create branch HBASE-14123 off of master with mega patch
> > v61
> > > as
> > > > > the
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> first
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> commit (reviewed by Stack and Enis)
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Vlad and I continue development (the 3 blockers) based
> on
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> HBASE-14123
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>     branch
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> when all of the blockers get +1 and merged into
> > HBASE-14123
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> branch,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> we
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> propose to community for merging into branch-2 (master
> > > branch,
> > > > if
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> branch-2
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> doesn't materialize for whatever reason) again
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 3:01 PM, Andrew Purtell<
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> apurtell@apache.org>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the offer but I like that you were honest
> about
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> compiling
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> list
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> of issues that you thought were blockers for release.
> > Since
> > > > this
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> proposal
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> is a merge into 2.0, and we are trying to release
> 2.0, I
> > > am
> > > > -1
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> on
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> this
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> merge until those blockers are addressed.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I had a look at the list.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I think the documentation issue is important but not
> > > > actually
> > > > > a
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> blocker.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> That may be a controversial opinion, but documentation
> > can
> > > > be
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> back-filled
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> worst case. So take HBASE-17133 off the list.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Remaining are effectively HBASE-14417, HBASE-14141,
> and
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> HBASE-15227.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> They
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> all have patches attached to the respective JIRAs so
> > > > completing
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> this
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> work
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> won't be onerous. Get these committed and I will lift my
> > -1.
> > > > The
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> others
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> who
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> voted +1 on this thread surely can help with that.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 2:32 PM, Vladimir Rodionov<
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> vladrodionov@gmail.com>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> No problem I will downgrade Blockers to Majors if it
> > > scares
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> you,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Andrew
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> [image: [image: 🙂]]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 10, 2017, at 1:52 PM, Andrew Purtell<
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> apurtell@apache.org
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> ​I know the merge of this feature has lagged
> > > substantially.
> > > > I
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> think
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> regrettable but on another thread we are lamenting
> that
> > > 2.0
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> already
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> late. Unless I misunderstand, this is a proposal to
> > merge
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> something
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> with
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> known blockers into trunk before we branch it for 2.0
> > > which
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> effectively prevent that release because these
> > blockers
> > > > will
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> there. I
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> am
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> inclined to veto. Probably we should not propose branch
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merges
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> into
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> code
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> we
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> are trying to get out the door with known blockers.
> Why
> > > not
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> work
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> first? It seems an obvious question. Perhaps I am
> missing
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> something.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we can branch for 2.0 now and then merge this,
> and
> > > not
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> into
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 2.0
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> branch, I would vote +1 for branch merge even with known
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> blockers
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> pending.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> ​
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 1:42 PM, Vladimir Rodionov<
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vladrodionov@gmail.com>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They are not blockers for merge - only for 2.0. GA
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I said already the feature is usable right now
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We would like to continue working on master and we
> > > would
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> see
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> a
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> commitment from community
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 10, 2017, at 11:16 AM, Andrew Purtell<
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> apurtell@apache.org
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Only BLOCKERs and CRITICALs are guaranteed for HBase
> > 2.0
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> release.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we have identified blockers, why merge this
> > before
> > > > they
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Otherwise we can't release 2.0, and it is overdue.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 1:32 PM, Vladimir Rodionov<
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vladrodionov@gmail.com>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello, HBase folks
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For your consideration today is Backup/Restore
> > > feature
> > > > > for
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apache
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HBAse
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.0.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Backup code is available as a mega patch in
> > HBASE-14123
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (v61),
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applies
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cleanly to the current master, all test PASS, patch
> > has
> > > > no
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> other
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The patch has gone through numerous rounds of code
> > > > reviews
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> probably
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> the most lengthy discussion thread on Apache JIRA
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (HBASE-14123)
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :)
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The work has been split into 3 phases (HBASE-14030,
> > > > 14123,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 14414)
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Two
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> first
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> are complete, third one is still in progress.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *** Summary of work HBASE-14123
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The new feature introduces new command-line
> > > extensions
> > > > > to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hbase
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> command
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and, from the client side, is accessible through
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> command-line
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Operations:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> * Create full backup on a list of tables or backup set
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> * Create incremental backup image for table list or
> > > backup
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * Restore list of tables from a given backup
> image
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * Show current backup progress
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> * Delete backup image and all related images
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * Show history of backups
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * Backup set operations: create backup set,
> > > add/remove
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> table
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to/from
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> backup
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> set, etc
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In the current implementation, the feature is
> > already
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> usable,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> users can backup tables and restore them using provided
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> command-line
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tools.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Both: full and incremental backups are supported.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This work is based on original work of IBM team
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (HBASE-7912).
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> full
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> list
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of JIRAs included in this mega patch can be found in
> > > three
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> umbrella
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JIRAs:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HBASE-14030 (Phase 1), HBASE-14123 (Phase 2) and
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> HBASE-14414
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Phase 3
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> all
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resolved ones made it into the patch)
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *** What are the remaining work items
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All remaining items can be found in Phase 3
> > umbrella
> > > > > JIRA:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HBASE-14414.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They are split into 3 groups: BLOCKER, CRITICAL,
> > > MAJOR
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Only BLOCKERs and CRITICALs are guaranteed for
> HBase
> > > 2.0
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ***** BLOCKER
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * HBASE-14417 Incremental backup and bulk loading (
> > > Patch
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> available)
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * HBASE-14135 HBase Backup/Restore Phase 3: Merge
> > > > backup
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> images
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * HBASE-14141 HBase Backup/Restore Phase 3: Filter
> > > WALs
> > > > on
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> backup
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> include only edits from backup tables (Patch
> > available)
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> * HBASE-17133 Backup documentation
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * HBASE-15227 Fault tolerance support
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ***** CRITICAL
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * HBASE-16465 Disable split/merges during backup
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have umbrella JIRA (HBASE-14414) to track all
> > the
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remaining
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> work
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All the BLOCKER and CRITICAL JIRAs currently in
> open
> > > > state
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implemented by 2.0 release time. Some MAJOR too,
> but
> > it
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> depends
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resource
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> availability
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The former development branch (HBASE-7912) is
> obsolete
> > > and
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> closed/deleted after the merge.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> We want backup to be a GA feature in 2.0
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> We are going to support full backward compatibility
> > for
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> backup
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tool in
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.0
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and onwards.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **** Configuration
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Backup is disabled, by default. To enable it,
> the
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> following
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> properties must be added to hbase-site.xml:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> hbase.backup.enable=true
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hbase.master.logcleaner.
> plugins=YOUR_PLUGINS,org.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> apache.hadoop.hbase.backup.
> > master.BackupLogCleaner
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hbase.procedure.master.
> classes=YOUR_CLASSES,org.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> apache.hadoop.hbase.backup.master.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LogRollMasterProcedureManager
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hbase.procedure.regionserver.
> > > classes=YOUR_CLASSES,org.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> apache.hadoop.hbase.backup.regionserver.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> LogRollRegionServerProcedureMa
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nager
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would like to thank IBM team and Jerry He for
> > > > original
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> work,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Enis, Ted, Stack, Matteo, Jerry for time spent on
> > > code
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reviews
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Special thanks to Ted Yu for his co-development work.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> References:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-7912
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (original
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IBM,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contains
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> design doc)
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-14030
> > (Phase
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1)
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/
> jira/browse/HBASE-14123
> > > > (Phase
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2)
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-14414
> (Phase
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3)
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Please  vote +1/-1 by midnight Pacific Time (00:00
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -0800 GMT) on March 11th  ​on whether or not we
> > should
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> merge
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> current master.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Vladimir Rodionov
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>     - Andy
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you are given a choice, you believe you have
> > acted
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> freely. -
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Raymond
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Teller (via Peter Watts)
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      - Andy
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you are given a choice, you believe you have
> acted
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> freely. -
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Raymond
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Teller (via Peter Watts)
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> --
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>       - Andy
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> If you are given a choice, you believe you have acted
> > > > > freely. -
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Raymond
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Teller (via Peter Watts)
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

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