Jimmy and I have been adding features essentially as we've needed them, including some options that limit fixes to particular tables, and limit the kinds of fixes that are applied.
There is a jira for making the repairs interactive -- either a hbck shell, an interactive mode that provides a series of y/n questions. I'd be amenable to any of these kinds of improvements. Jon. On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 10:50 AM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <[email protected]>wrote: > On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 9:56 PM, Ramkrishna.S.Vasudevan > <[email protected]> wrote: > > J-d > > Corrections, if META does not have an entry then we cannot know if it is > > splitted or not.. Apologies for that. > > > > I think we need to check for Reference files and if the opening fails we > > need to report it. That should be the way. > > But we should also confirm whether this region was split properly, right? > > That's what I'm wondering about. It seems to me that hbck currently is > overly aggressive fixing things (see also HBASE-6417 where it merged > .META.). So should we have all the heuristics to detect problems and > then add the corner cases after as people find them? Or should we let > the users decide what should be fixed? It could be that we should ask > more questions to the users. I'm thinking out loud here. > > J-D > -- // Jonathan Hsieh (shay) // Software Engineer, Cloudera // [email protected]
