hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Josh Elser <els...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSSION] Items to purge from branch-2 before we cut hbase-2.0.0-beta1.
Date Wed, 01 Nov 2017 19:41:55 GMT
On 11/1/17 3:25 PM, Vladimir Rodionov wrote:
>>> I've not done in-depth research so could be wrong about backup, but from
> my
>>> perch, I've seen the recent filings against backup, HBASE-19104-19109,
>>> which strike me as pretty basic missing facility. The new issues go
> without
>>> comment (caveat a single question). I've seen no evidence of extensive
> test
>>> (scale?). The last issue I looked at has backup putting up two system
>>> tables with presumptions about assignment order we do not (as yet)
> support.
>>> I've always had trouble eliciting state of the feature; summary of
>>> capability and what is to do are hard to come by.
> 1. HBASE-19104 - 19109
> None of them are basic, Stack. These requests came from SF after discussion
> we had with them recently
> No single comments is because I was out of country last week.
> 2. Backup tables are not system ones, they belong to a separate namespace -
> "backup"
> 3. We make no assumptions on assignment order of these tables.
> As for real scale testing and documentation , we still have time before
> 2.0GA.  Can't be blocker IMO

I think I've put my foot in my mouth here, haven't I.

I'm reminded of the last discussion we had on the subject (pre-alpha 
releases?) in which I agreed that we should get some scale testing done. 
I remember putting some thought into what "backup's ITBLL" could look 
like, but I think it got stalled.


Should this be the gate for inclusion for 2.0? I think all known 
fault-tolerance issues given the current implementation are addressed 
(as Vlad was saying earlier). Maybe there are still bugs lingering, but 
that's the state of uncertainty we deal with, isn't it?

View raw message