bq. I don't think this is a hard requirement for merge Agreed. Can be done post-merge.
On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 5:01 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <[email protected]> wrote: > Comments inline > > On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 11:20 AM, Ted Yu <[email protected]> wrote: > > > w.r.t. hbck, the two actions listed below look good. > > > > Cheers > > > > On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Jonathan Hsieh <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 7:38 PM, Ted Yu <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > This is a useful feature, Jon. > > > > > > > > I went over the mega-patch and left some comments on review board. > > > > > > > > I noticed that hbck was not included in the patch. Neither did I > find a > > > > sub-task of HBASE-11339 that covers hbck. > > > > > > > > Do you or Jingcheng plan to add MOB-aware capability for hbck ? > > > > > > > > Ted -- what in particular are you thinking about for a mob-aware > hbck? > > > > > > here are a few things I can think of: > > > > > > - hbck doesn't berak mob > > > > hbck not getting broken by mob should be a check we do and will be done > before merge. > > > - a full table scan job that verifies all mob refs have values > > > > > > I don't think this is a hard requirement for merge. > > wdyt ted? > > > > > -- > > > // Jonathan Hsieh (shay) > > > // HBase Tech Lead, Software Engineer, Cloudera > > > // [email protected] // @jmhsieh > > > > > > > > > -- > // Jonathan Hsieh (shay) > // HBase Tech Lead, Software Engineer, Cloudera > // [email protected] // @jmhsieh >
