HBASE-5324 is the one I filed on interactive hbck. We can use it if there is no duplicate one.
Thanks, Jmmy On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 10:55 AM, Jonathan Hsieh <[email protected]> wrote: > 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]
