Yes but the user can't get the table back online with hbck, no? On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 2:20 PM, Elliott Clark <ecl...@stumbleupon.com> wrote: > I don't think that this is an hbck issue. The root table is corrupted > before the hbck run. The hbck check just shows that root does not > contain an assigned meta. > > On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 2:01 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> wrote: >> Seems like a blocker if hbck failure is reproducible even though it >> happens with 0.92. We know about it now... Thanks Elliott. >> >> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote: >>> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 9:45 PM, lars hofhansl <lhofha...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> Thanks Elliot! >>>> I wonder whether this is related to (or the cause of) HBASE-5754? >>>> >>> >>> Sounds bad. Its unrelated to HBASE-5754 I'd say (its -ROOT- rather >>> than .META.). >>> St.Ack >> >> >> >> -- >> Best regards, >> >> - Andy >> >> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet >> Hein (via Tom White)
-- Best regards, - Andy Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein (via Tom White)
