hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stack <st...@duboce.net>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Plan to avoid backup/restore removal from 2.0
Date Sat, 11 Nov 2017 22:31:36 GMT
On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 3:17 PM, Josh Elser <elserj@apache.org> wrote:

> A few more areas of movement:
> * I've cleaned up HBASE-14414 to encapsulate what is still being proposed
> for beta-1. Shouldn't be any surprises here. Things outstanding deferred to
> HBASE-17362 (fixVersion=2.1.0).

Is there a high-level overview of what the feature should be able to do in
hbase-2? (The issue HBASE-14414  has a bunch of issues hanging off it. It
is hard to get an overview).

I read over the doc patch (its nice). It seems to give a high-level
overview.  It has a limitations section on the end which is good. Is there
anything on what user can expect in terms of size consumptions, resources
consumed effecting a backup, or how long a restore will take? I would think
it useful I'd imagine, particularly the latter bit of info as a rough
gauge. Is this where I (a user) gets an overview of what would be in hbase2?

Doc says merge of incrementals works? Thought I saw somewhere that it was
not done -- could be wrong.

Has anyone tried the example in the doc? (Backup to s3?).

> Don't want to make any assumptions, but I hope the lack of hard objection
> can be interpreted as (begrudging, perhaps) acceptance of the plan. Let
> me/us know when possible, please!
Plan seems fine.

Are you the owner of this feature now Josh or just shepherding it in?


> Thanks all.
> On 11/7/17 11:30 PM, Josh Elser wrote:
>> Folks,
>> I've been working with Vlad and Ted offline to make sure we have a plan
>> that addresses the implementation gaps Vlad sees and the barriers-for-entry
>> previously stated to keep the feature in HBase 2.0. My hope is that this
>> can be an honest discussion given 2.0-beta timelines, with a concrete
>> action plan. I'm trying my best to not re-hash the logic/reasoning/caveats
>> behind previous concerns; anything folks feel is a blocker that I haven't
>> covered below is unintentional.
>> The list:
>> 1. Documentation. It must be updated and committed, ensuring it covers
>> the details operators/architects need to know to use it effectively
>> (HBASE-16574). Vlad will help with content, myself and/or Frank will get it
>> updated to asciidoc.
>> 2. Distributed testing missing. Vlad has taken my previous document on
>> goals and translated that into an implementation outline[1]. Ted and I have
>> already weighed in -- I believe it hits the salient points for the quality
>> of testing we're looking for. I'll get started on this while Vlad does #4
>> (after consensus on approach, of course). Needs JIRA issue (maybe?).
>> 3. Operator utility to verify backups. In abstract, this should just be
>> the same guts of a tool like VerifyReplication. In practice, this should be
>> the same code that #3 uses (if not _actually_ the same guts as
>> VerifyReplication). The hope is that this will be encapsulated (time-wise)
>> by #3. Needs JIRA issue (maybe?).
>> 4. Polish DistCP for bulk-loaded files/fault-tolerance (HBASE-17852). I
>> don't have specifics here -- will rely on Vlad to correct me if there's a
>> better JIRA issue to track than the aforementioned. Will rely on details to
>> show up the JIRA issue to track it.
>> Current due dates:
>> 1. End of week (2017/11/10)
>> 2. Before US Thanksgiving (2017/11/22)
>> 3. Same as #2
>> 4. Same as #1
>> My current thought is that this is reasonable for implementation times,
>> and would not derail the rest of the beta-1 train. I appreciate the
>> patience from all parties, and I hope that those trying to make this better
>> can find a little more time to give some feedback. Thanks for the long read
>> if nothing else.
>> - Josh
>> [1] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xbPlLKjOcPq2LDqjbSkF6uND
>> AG0mzgOxek6P3POLeMc/edit?usp=sharing

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