Thanks for the jira Jimmy, it seems to me that we should aim for a dry run feature first and then consider the interactive part. At least it would give the user an opportunity to fix problems that would otherwise make things worse.
J-D On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 11:02 AM, Jimmy Xiang <[email protected]> wrote: > 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]
