From dev-return-75938-archive-asf-public=cust-asf.ponee.io@hbase.apache.org Fri Sep 13 23:44:31 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [207.244.88.153]) by mx-eu-01.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id 5A45A180652 for ; Sat, 14 Sep 2019 01:44:31 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 65508 invoked by uid 500); 13 Sep 2019 23:44:30 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@hbase.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@hbase.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@hbase.apache.org Received: (qmail 65496 invoked by uid 99); 13 Sep 2019 23:44:30 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd2-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 23:44:30 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd2-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd2-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id 93DD11A499C for ; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 23:44:29 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd2-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.004 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.004 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=disabled Received: from mx1-ec2-va.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd2-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.9]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0heBnGDilkbD for ; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 23:44:27 +0000 (UTC) Received-SPF: Pass (mailfrom) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=209.85.210.196; helo=mail-pf1-f196.google.com; envelope-from=saint.ack@gmail.com; receiver= Received: from mail-pf1-f196.google.com (mail-pf1-f196.google.com [209.85.210.196]) by mx1-ec2-va.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-ec2-va.apache.org) with ESMTPS id 6ECE4BC509 for ; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 23:44:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pf1-f196.google.com with SMTP id b128so130421pfa.1 for ; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 16:44:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=9dvWR83CtNp6DFO4dALTU2aTvgguts5/Wsq/yRQr0bo=; b=cDEL2avb25NVRI5O7RdjwLQ568w7eZ6mLlmyNq9wHNPHlPSSrXTbpZfuwwL78p0573 UnPeVC8eifLtqa3+3hcLApcpJhBU3t+yk65V3JWttRv7pVNEd26jtXmcy8f/wtbsNX7l xSBuXL4op5xZyRXVBTQWKmUD/HaCgl8Yu4kATmkuyeuWbVa00PTWAY+qtkuP+0zbfrc1 jUsLXAee1oAGJrE4OWVRX/KTRhh47Bh1s+C5nl6JIDrbV3uGS2ykeFbMClt8F2TORq3A 78JaQGwsFaf3fR81A5zA6opCrQaeREJTB6Wk7Kyz6HIEA1pYI2cyI4qOTkG8NCbeMCyH b2lQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWQJ7TmznH2oTQclwEUQfZO/frnTFwwdYZf1yWXWjDamGtQNR0n CWv55hYvJt4HlXpXqavy12CDduoWXcEGzcxJyU+B5QQb X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxv2MicJYmZkJecBmTiptwO2fVdr2UxOnw8z6cjpvN+YWxQWl6G4X4TXNdhhl0vJUzlgvIHP4wkFlNb0pCkTS0= X-Received: by 2002:a65:6093:: with SMTP id t19mr45471560pgu.79.1568418266080; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 16:44:26 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <74ECFFA8DC3B6847888649793C770FE0ABC155C0@BLREML503-MBX.china.huawei.com> In-Reply-To: From: Stack Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2019 16:44:14 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Moving towards a branch-2 line that can get the 'stable' pointer. To: HBase Dev List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000009bf0d0059277d558" --0000000000009bf0d0059277d558 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable HBASE-21745 , the issue addressing gaps between hbck1 and hbck2 was closed a few days back after a bunch of work by a kaleidoscope of folks. The release notes section tries to describe what was added by HBASE-21745. Shout if you think the claim at the end of the release notes section that hbck2 now is on par or beyond what hbck1 offered is problematic. Otherwise, will proceed as though it is the case. Suggestion: Given that hbase 2.2.1 will ship soon and hbase-operator-tools 1.0.0 with latest hbase-hbck2 should get an RC inside the next week or so, if feedback that 2.2.1 looks good, give 2.2.2 (with bug fixes only) the stable pointer? Thanks, S On Sat, Jan 26, 2019 at 11:31 AM Stack wrote: > As per Sean, bypass with optional 'force' (override) and recurse for case > where a procedure had spawned children was the mechanism Allan implemente= d > after a chat about merits of procedure delete. I found it of use doing > fixup to clusters I'd intentionally damaged testing candidates. Procedure= s > are usually part of a fabric with relations that an operator might have > trouble unraveling. It was thought that the bypass would be safer than a > delete, likely to cause more damage than solution. > > Interested in the issues you are seeing on Master branch Sergey. > > Thanks, > S > > On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 1:54 PM Sean Busbey wrote: > >> that's already present, see the README for the "bypass" command: >> >> https://github.com/apache/hbase-operator-tools/tree/master/hbase-hbck2 >> >> On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 3:40 PM Sergey Shelukhin >> wrote: >> > >> > I think one thing that is needed for HBCK2 for AMv2 is to be able to >> delete single procedures from store. >> > We are evaluating master (whose assignment is very similar to branch-2= ) >> right now and I have to delete proc WAL pretty much every day because so= me >> procedure(s) are in bad state, but deleting the entire WAL also causes >> other issues. >> > It should be possible to remove some offending procedure while master >> is offline and/or online. >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: =E5=BC=A0=E9=93=8E(Duo Zhang) >> > Sent: Friday, January 18, 2019 5:52 PM >> > To: HBase Dev List >> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Moving towards a branch-2 line that can get the >> 'stable' pointer. >> > >> > OK, the original issue is HBCK2 for AMv2, but here we need to do more, >> not only for AMv2. >> > >> > Let me open a new issue and post what Andrew said above there. >> > >> > --0000000000009bf0d0059277d558--