Enis, what I suggested was that even no repair is suggested, we still
should disable master maint tasks in online check for more deterministic
result.
Thanks
Stephen
On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Enis Söztutar <enis....@gmail.com> wrote:
> check out the corresponding shouldXXX commands:
>
> public boolean shouldDisableBalancer() {
>
> return fixAny || disableBalancer;
>
> }
> If fixAny which is true if any of the -fix is run, we disable the master
> chores.
>
> For -fixHdfsOverlaps and -fixHdfsHoles, I've mentioned this in the jira I
> think, but we should deprecate those, and do -fixOverlaps and -fixHoles
> separately. These two new commands will look at BOTH hdfs and meta to
> decide on what to do.
>
> Enis
>
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 12:30 PM, Stephen Jiang <syuanjiang...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > } else if (cmd.equals("-disableBalancer")) {
> >
> > setDisableBalancer();
> >
> > } else if (cmd.equals("-disableSplitAndMerge")) {
> >
> > setDisableSplitAndMerge();
> >
> > In HBCK, we will either use the options to disable master maintenance
> work
> > (see above) or the master maintenance are disabled during repair.
> >
> > I think we should always disable master maintenance work during online
> > HBCK, because balancer moving regions around during online check; or
> > split/merge regions during online check would have unexpected side
> effect.
> >
> > How do you think?
> >
> > Thanks
> > Stephen
> >
> > Also, I think we have too many options. We really should reduce options
> in
> > hbck so that it is more user friendly (eg. currently implementation of
> > -fixHdfsOverlaps would almost 100% create hole, it does not make sense to
> > run it alone, it should always run with -fixHdfsHoles option; and very
> > likely with -fixMeta option)
> >
>
