Point taken. But I don't think previous discussion was about removing offline merge.
On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 8:19 AM, Jonathan Hsieh <[email protected]> wrote: > Let me offer a counter argument. The offline splitting code is still > present even though online splitting isn't the problem it used to be. We > actually added an extenal wal replayer even though we have wal replay in > our normal recovery path. Copy table still exists even though snapshots > and snapshot export exists. Would we consider removing these? > > IMO, until online merge has been proven and hardened (gone through few > releases and folk using) I don't feel comfortable removing it. > > Jon. > > On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 7:07 PM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi Enis, > > > > I totaly agree. But even if online merge are available, maybe offline > > merges can still usefull in case the cluster is down for maintenance, > > or because there is any issue to start it, or anything else? We have > > it, so we should maybe try to keep it? > > > > JM > > > > 2013/3/21 Enis Söztutar <[email protected]>: > > > Thanks J-M. > > > > > > What I am trying to understand is that whether we should cut the cord > for > > > offline merge once online is working. If you think about it, there > should > > > not be a need to merge offline tables. > > > > > > Enis > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari < > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > >> Offline merge is already there and working fine. > > >> > > >> The usecase here was to retreive all the regions for a given table to > > >> merge them 2 by 2, offline. > > >> > > >> It's working fine, but since the Meta rework it's not working anymore > > >> and I'm trying to rebase the patch. > > >> > > >> Like J-D is saying, yes, it's used only in the offline merge... And > > >> since the online merge is coming, I think it's cleaner to keep the > > >> code in the offline merge since it will disapear soon, but in the > > >> meantime, at least, we will have the offline one. > > >> > > >> JM > > >> > > >> 2013/3/21 Enis Söztutar <[email protected]>: > > >> > What is the use case behind offline merge? Is it because we cannot > do > > >> > online merge yet? If we can get HBASE-7403 in, is there still need > to > > >> > support offline merge? > > >> > > > >> > Enis > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 2:56 PM, Jean-Daniel Cryans < > > [email protected] > > >> >wrote: > > >> > > > >> >> As far as I can tell, only the merge code uses MetaUtils to do > > offline > > >> >> work. If this is the code you are in then pull it back into > MetaUtils > > >> >> I think. > > >> >> > > >> >> J-D > > >> >> > > >> >> On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 2:44 PM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari > > >> >> <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> >> > Vector is because of a very old bad habit ;) I will change that > to > > >> >> ArrayList. > > >> >> > > > >> >> > So far I have inlined the scanMetaRegion feature into the Merge, > > but > > >> >> > maybe it should be cleaner to put it back in? > > >> >> > > > >> >> > Anyway, I will keep the inlined one until everything is cleaned. > > >> >> > > > >> >> > 2013/3/21 Enis Söztutar <[email protected]>: > > >> >> >> The problem around current META scanning is that there is more > > than > > >> one > > >> >> way > > >> >> >> to do these, and the META layout is exposed. We should refrain > > from > > >> >> >> exposing the META details. > > >> >> >> AFAIK, these do the same thing: > > >> >> >> MetaReader.Visitor > > >> >> >> MetaScanner.MetaScannerVisitor, and > > >> >> >> MetaUtils.ScannerListener > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> More concerning is that the code for managing META is spread > over > > >> >> >> MetaEditor, MetaReader, MetaScanner, MetaUtils, HRegionInfo (and > > >> maybe > > >> >> >> more). There are a couple of issues to rework these interfaces, > > but I > > >> >> did > > >> >> >> not get the chance to work on those. > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> Enis > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 2:18 PM, Jean-Daniel Cryans < > > >> >> [email protected]>wrote: > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >>> Mmmm I may have been trigger happy. You could pull back the > > >> >> >>> ScannerListener and scanMetaRegion. > > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> BTW, why are you using a Vector instead of ArrayList? > > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> J-D > > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari > > >> >> >>> <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> >> >>> > Hi, > > >> >> >>> > > > >> >> >>> > In trunk, since HBASE-3171 (Drop ROOT and instead store META > > >> >> >>> > location(s) directly in ZooKeeper ) there is no more > > >> >> >>> > MetaUtils.ScannerListener. > > >> >> >>> > > > >> >> >>> > In the merge, I used it to retreive all the regions belonging > > to a > > >> >> >>> > specific table, from the META. kind of scan. > > >> >> >>> > > > >> >> >>> > // Retrieve the list of regions for this table. > > >> >> >>> > final List<HRegionInfo> regions = new > > >> >> Vector<HRegionInfo>(); > > >> >> >>> > > > utils.scanMetaRegion(HRegionInfo.FIRST_META_REGIONINFO, > > >> new > > >> >> >>> > MetaUtils.ScannerListener() { > > >> >> >>> > public boolean processRow(HRegionInfo info) { > > >> >> >>> > if ((info != null) && > > >> >> >>> > (Bytes.compareTo(info.getTableName(), tableName) == 0)) { > > >> >> >>> > regions.add(info); > > >> >> >>> > } > > >> >> >>> > return true; > > >> >> >>> > } > > >> >> >>> > }); > > >> >> >>> > > > >> >> >>> > > > >> >> >>> > Is there a recommanded way to replace that? The Merge is > > running > > >> >> >>> > offline, so I can't do a scan. > > >> >> >>> > > > >> >> >>> > Thanks, > > >> >> >>> > > > >> >> >>> > JM > > >> >> >>> > > >> >> > > >> > > > > > > -- > // Jonathan Hsieh (shay) > // Software Engineer, Cloudera > // [email protected] >
