>> How hard to put in an hbase-backup module? hbase-server is fat enough >> already. Could be done as a follow-up.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-16727?focusedCommentId=15531237&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-15531237 Can we do merge first? Then we can discuss separate module. -Vlad On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 3:44 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> wrote: > Looks like the first quote was cut off. > The original sentence was: > > bq. no mapreduce job launched from master or region server. > > mapreduce job is launched from the node where command line tool is run. > > On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 3:38 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote: > > > bq. launched from master or region server. > > > > What does this mean please? Has to be run from Master or RegionServer? > Can > > it be run from another node altogether? > > > > On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Vladimir Rodionov < > vladrodio...@gmail.com > > > > > wrote: > > > > > >> mapreduce dependency has been moved to client side - no mapreduce > job > > > > > > 1. We have no code in the client module anymore, due to dependency on > > > internal server API (HFile and WAL access). > > > 2. Backup/ restore are client - driven operations, but all the code > > resides > > > in the server module > > > > > > > How hard to put in an hbase-backup module? hbase-server is fat enough > > already. Could be done as a follow-up. > > > > Thanks, > > St.Ack > > > > > > > > > 3. No MR in Master, no procedure - driven execution. > > > 4. Old good MR from command-line. > > > 5. Security was simplified and now only super-user is allowed to run > > > backup/restores. > > > 6. HBase Backup API was gone due to 1. Now only command-line access to > > > backup tools. > > > > > > These consequences of refactoring has been discussed in HBASE-16727. > > > > > > -Vlad > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 1:31 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Reviving this thread. > > > > > > > > The following has taken place: > > > > > > > > mapreduce dependency has been moved to client side - no mapreduce job > > > > launched from master or region server. > > > > document patch (HBASE-16574) has been integrated. > > > > Updated mega patch has been attached to HBASE-14123: this covers the > > > > refactor in #1 above and the protobuf 3 merge. > > > > > > > > If community has more feedback on the merge proposal, I would love to > > > hear > > > > it. > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 10:31 AM, Sean Busbey <bus...@cloudera.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > I'd like to see the docs proposed on HBASE-16574 integrated into > our > > > > > project's documentation prior to merge. > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 9:02 AM, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > This feature can be marked experimental due to some limitations > > such > > > as > > > > > > security. > > > > > > > > > > > > Your previous round of comments have been addressed. > > > > > > Command line tool has gone through: > > > > > > > > > > > > HBASE-16620 Fix backup command-line tool usability issues > > > > > > HBASE-16655 hbase backup describe with incorrect backup id > results > > in > > > > NPE > > > > > > > > > > > > The updated doc has been attached to HBASE-16574. > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 8:53 AM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 7:43 AM, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Are there more (review) comments ? > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Are outstanding comments addressed? > > > > > >> > > > > > >> I don't see answer to my 'is this experimental/will it be marked > > > > > >> experimental' question. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> I ran into some issues trying to use the feature and suggested > > that > > > a > > > > > >> feature likes this needs polish else it'll just rot, unused. Has > > > > polish > > > > > >> been applied? All ready for another 'user' test? Suggest that > you > > > > update > > > > > >> here going forward for the benefit of those trying to follow > along > > > and > > > > > who > > > > > >> are not watching JIRA change fly-by. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> It looks like doc got a revision -- I have to check -- to take > on > > > > > >> suggestion made above but again, suggest, that this thread gets > > > > updated. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Thanks, > > > > > >> St.Ack > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Thanks > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:02 AM, Devaraj Das < > > > d...@hortonworks.com > > > > > > > > > > >> > wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > Just reviving this thread. Thanks Sean, Stack, Dima, and > > others > > > > for > > > > > the > > > > > >> > > thorough reviews and testing. Thanks Ted and Vlad for taking > > > care > > > > of > > > > > >> the > > > > > >> > > feedback. Are we all good to do the merge now? Rather do > > sooner > > > > than > > > > > >> > later. > > > > > >> > > ________________________________________ > > > > > >> > > From: saint....@gmail.com <saint....@gmail.com> on behalf > of > > > > Stack > > > > > < > > > > > >> > > st...@duboce.net> > > > > > >> > > Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 1:18 PM > > > > > >> > > To: HBase Dev List > > > > > >> > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSSION] Merge Backup / Restore - Branch > > > > HBASE-7912 > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 12:19 PM, Ted Yu < > yuzhih...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > Mega patch (rev 18) is on HBASE-14123. > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > Please comment on HBASE-14123 on how you want to review. > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > Yeah. That was my lost tab. Last rb was 6 months ago. > Suggest > > > > > updating > > > > > >> > it. > > > > > >> > > RB is pretty good for review. Patch is only 1.5M so should > be > > > > fine. > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > St.Ack > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > Thanks > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 12:15 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > On review of the 'patch', do I just compare the branch > to > > > > > master or > > > > > >> > is > > > > > >> > > > > there a megapatch posted somewhere (I think I saw one > but > > it > > > > > seemed > > > > > >> > > stale > > > > > >> > > > > and then I 'lost' the tab). Sorry for dumb question. > > > > > >> > > > > St.Ack > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 12:01 PM, Stack < > st...@duboce.net > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Late to the game. A few comments after rereading this > > > thread > > > > > as a > > > > > >> > > > 'user'. > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > + Before merge, a user-facing feature like this should > > > work > > > > > (If > > > > > >> > this > > > > > >> > > is > > > > > >> > > > > "higher-bar > > > > > >> > > > > > for new features", bring it on -- smile). > > > > > >> > > > > > + As a user, I tried the branch with tools after > > reviewing > > > > the > > > > > >> > > > > just-posted > > > > > >> > > > > > doc. I had an 'interesting' experience (left comments > up > > > on > > > > > >> > issue). I > > > > > >> > > > > think > > > > > >> > > > > > the tooling/doc. important to get right. If it breaks > > > easily > > > > > or > > > > > >> is > > > > > >> > > > > > inconsistent (or lacks 'polish'), operators will judge > > the > > > > > whole > > > > > >> > > > > > backup/restore tooling chain as not trustworthy and > > > abandon > > > > > it. > > > > > >> > Lets > > > > > >> > > > not > > > > > >> > > > > > have this happen to this feature. > > > > > >> > > > > > + Matteo's suggestion (with a helpful starter list) > that > > > > there > > > > > >> > needs > > > > > >> > > to > > > > > >> > > > > be > > > > > >> > > > > > explicit qualification on what is actually being > > delivered > > > > -- > > > > > >> > > > including a > > > > > >> > > > > > listing of limitations (some look serious such as data > > > bleed > > > > > from > > > > > >> > > other > > > > > >> > > > > > regions in WALs, but maybe I don't care for my use > > > case...) > > > > -- > > > > > >> > needs > > > > > >> > > to > > > > > >> > > > > > accompany the merge. Lets fold them into the user doc. > > in > > > > the > > > > > >> > > technical > > > > > >> > > > > > overview area as suggested so user expectations are > > > properly > > > > > >> > managed > > > > > >> > > > > > (otherwise, they expect the world and will just give > up > > > when > > > > > we > > > > > >> > fall > > > > > >> > > > > > short). Vladimir did a list of what is in each of the > > > phases > > > > > >> above > > > > > >> > > > which > > > > > >> > > > > > would serve as a good start. > > > > > >> > > > > > + Is this feature 'experimental' (Matteo asks above). > > I'd > > > > > prefer > > > > > >> it > > > > > >> > > is > > > > > >> > > > > > not. If it is, it should be labelled all over that it > is > > > > so. I > > > > > >> see > > > > > >> > > > > current > > > > > >> > > > > > state called out as a '... technical preview feature'. > > > Does > > > > > this > > > > > >> > mean > > > > > >> > > > > > not-for-users? > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > St.Ack > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 8:03 AM, Ted Yu < > > > > yuzhih...@gmail.com> > > > > > >> > wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> Sean: > > > > > >> > > > > >> Do you have more comments ? > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> Cheers > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Vladimir Rodionov < > > > > > >> > > > > vladrodio...@gmail.com > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > Sean, > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > Backup/Restore can fail due to various reasons: > > network > > > > > outage > > > > > >> > > > > (cluster > > > > > >> > > > > >> > wide), various time-outs in HBase and HDFS layer, > M/R > > > > > failure > > > > > >> > due > > > > > >> > > to > > > > > >> > > > > >> "HDFS > > > > > >> > > > > >> > exceeded quota", user error (manual deletion of > data) > > > and > > > > > so > > > > > >> on > > > > > >> > so > > > > > >> > > > on. > > > > > >> > > > > >> That > > > > > >> > > > > >> > is impossible to enumerate all possible types of > > > failures > > > > > in a > > > > > >> > > > > >> distributed > > > > > >> > > > > >> > system - that is not our goal/task. > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > We focus completely on backup system table > > consistency > > > > in a > > > > > >> > > presence > > > > > >> > > > > of > > > > > >> > > > > >> any > > > > > >> > > > > >> > type of failure. That is what I call "tolerance to > > > > > failures". > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > On a failure: > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > BACKUP. All backup system information (prior to > > backup) > > > > > will > > > > > >> be > > > > > >> > > > > restored > > > > > >> > > > > >> > and all temporary data, related to a failed > session, > > in > > > > > HDFS > > > > > >> > will > > > > > >> > > be > > > > > >> > > > > >> > deleted > > > > > >> > > > > >> > RESTORE. We do not care about system data, because > > > > restore > > > > > >> does > > > > > >> > > not > > > > > >> > > > > >> change > > > > > >> > > > > >> > it. Temporary data in HDFS will be cleaned up and > > table > > > > > will > > > > > >> be > > > > > >> > > in a > > > > > >> > > > > >> state > > > > > >> > > > > >> > back to where it was before operation started. > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > This is what user should expect in case of a > failure. > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > -Vlad > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > -Vlad > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 12:56 PM, Sean Busbey < > > > > > >> bus...@apache.org > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > Failing in a consistent way, with docs that > explain > > > the > > > > > >> > various > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > expected failures would be sufficient. > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 12:16 PM, Vladimir > Rodionov > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > <vladrodio...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > Do not worry Sean, doc is coming today as a > > preview > > > > and > > > > > >> our > > > > > >> > > > writer > > > > > >> > > > > >> > Frank > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > will be working on a putting it into Apache > > repo. > > > > > >> Timeline > > > > > >> > > > > depends > > > > > >> > > > > >> on > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > Franks schedule but I hope we will get it > rather > > > > sooner > > > > > >> than > > > > > >> > > > > later. > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > As for failure testing, we are focusing only > on a > > > > > >> consistent > > > > > >> > > > state > > > > > >> > > > > >> of > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > backup system data in a presence of any type of > > > > > failures, > > > > > >> We > > > > > >> > > are > > > > > >> > > > > not > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > going > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > to implement anything more "fancy", than that. > > We > > > > > allow > > > > > >> > both: > > > > > >> > > > > >> backup > > > > > >> > > > > >> > and > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > restore to fail. What we do not allow is to > have > > > > system > > > > > >> data > > > > > >> > > > > >> corrupted. > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > Will it suffice for you? Do you have any other > > > > > concerns, > > > > > >> you > > > > > >> > > > want > > > > > >> > > > > >> us to > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > address? > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > -Vlad > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 10:56 AM, Sean Busbey < > > > > > >> > > bus...@apache.org > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> "docs will come to Apache soon" does not > address > > > my > > > > > >> concern > > > > > >> > > > > around > > > > > >> > > > > >> > docs > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > at > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> all, unless said docs have already made it > into > > > the > > > > > >> project > > > > > >> > > > > repo. I > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > don't > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> want third party resources for using a major > and > > > > > >> important > > > > > >> > > > > feature > > > > > >> > > > > >> of > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > the > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> project, I want us to provide end users with > > what > > > > they > > > > > >> need > > > > > >> > > to > > > > > >> > > > > get > > > > > >> > > > > >> the > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > job > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> done. > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> I see some calls for patience on the failure > > > > testing, > > > > > but > > > > > >> > the > > > > > >> > > > > >> appeal > > > > > >> > > > > >> > to > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > us > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> having done a bad job of requiring proper > tests > > of > > > > > >> previous > > > > > >> > > > > >> features > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > just > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> makes me more concerned about not getting them > > > > here. I > > > > > >> > don't > > > > > >> > > > want > > > > > >> > > > > >> to > > > > > >> > > > > >> > set > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> yet another bad example that will then be > > pointed > > > to > > > > > in > > > > > >> the > > > > > >> > > > > future. > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> On Sep 8, 2016 10:50, "Ted Yu" < > > > yuzhih...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > >> > wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > Is there any concern which is not addressed > ? > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > Do we need another Vote thread ? > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > Thanks > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 9:21 AM, Andrew > > Purtell < > > > > > >> > > > > >> apurt...@apache.org > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > Vlad, > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > I apologize for using the term > 'half-baked' > > > in a > > > > > way > > > > > >> > that > > > > > >> > > > > could > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > seem a > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > description of HBASE-7912. I meant that > as a > > > > > general > > > > > >> > > > > >> hypothetical. > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 9:36 AM, Vladimir > > > > Rodionov > > > > > < > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > vladrodio...@gmail.com> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > >> I'm not sure that "There is already > > lots > > > of > > > > > >> > > half-baked > > > > > >> > > > > >> code > > > > > >> > > > > >> > in > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > the > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > branch, > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > so what's the harm in adding more?" > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > I meant - not production - ready yet. > This > > > is > > > > > 2.0 > > > > > >> > > > > development > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > branch > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > and, > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > hence many features are in works, > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > not being tested well etc. I do not > > consider > > > > > backup > > > > > >> > as > > > > > >> > > > half > > > > > >> > > > > >> > baked > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > feature - > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > it has passed our internal QA and has > very > > > > good > > > > > >> doc, > > > > > >> > > > which > > > > > >> > > > > we > > > > > >> > > > > >> > will > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > provide > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > to Apache shortly. > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > -Vlad > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 9:13 AM, Andrew > > > > Purtell < > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > apurt...@apache.org> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > We shouldn't admit half baked changes > > that > > > > > won't > > > > > >> be > > > > > >> > > > > >> finished. > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> However > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > in > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > this case the crew working on this > > feature > > > > are > > > > > >> long > > > > > >> > > > > timers > > > > > >> > > > > >> and > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > less > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > likely > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > than just about anyone to leave > > something > > > > in a > > > > > >> half > > > > > >> > > > baked > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > state. Of > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > course > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > there is no guarantee how anything > will > > > turn > > > > > out, > > > > > >> > > but I > > > > > >> > > > > am > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > willing > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> to > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > take > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > a little on faith if they feel their > > best > > > > path > > > > > >> > > forward > > > > > >> > > > > now > > > > > >> > > > > >> is > > > > > >> > > > > >> > to > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > merge > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > to > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > trunk. I only wish I had bandwidth to > > have > > > > > done > > > > > >> > some > > > > > >> > > > real > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > kicking > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> of > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > the > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > tires by now. Maybe this week. > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > (Yes, I'm using some of that time for > > this > > > > > email > > > > > >> > :-) > > > > > >> > > > but > > > > > >> > > > > I > > > > > >> > > > > >> > type > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > fast.) > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > That said, I would like to agitate for > > > > making > > > > > 2.0 > > > > > >> > > more > > > > > >> > > > > real > > > > > >> > > > > >> > and > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> spend > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > some > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > time on it now that I'm winding down > > with > > > > > 0.98. I > > > > > >> > > think > > > > > >> > > > > >> that > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > means > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > branching for 2.0 real soon now and > even > > > > > evicting > > > > > >> > > > things > > > > > >> > > > > >> from > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > 2.0 > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > branch > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > that aren't finished or stable, > leaving > > > them > > > > > only > > > > > >> > > once > > > > > >> > > > > >> again > > > > > >> > > > > >> > in > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > the > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > master > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > branch. Or, maybe just evicting them. > > > Let's > > > > > take > > > > > >> it > > > > > >> > > > case > > > > > >> > > > > by > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > case. > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > I think this feature can come in > > > relatively > > > > > >> safely. > > > > > >> > > As > > > > > >> > > > > >> added > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > insurance, > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > let's admit the possibility it could > be > > > > > reverted > > > > > >> on > > > > > >> > > the > > > > > >> > > > > 2.0 > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > branch > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> if > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > folks > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > working on stabilizing 2.0 decide to > > evict > > > > it > > > > > >> > because > > > > > >> > > > it > > > > > >> > > > > is > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > unfinished > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > or > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > unstable, because that certainly can > > > > happen. I > > > > > >> > would > > > > > >> > > > > >> expect if > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > talk > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > like > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > that starts, we'd get help finishing > or > > > > > >> stabilizing > > > > > >> > > > > what's > > > > > >> > > > > >> > under > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > discussion > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > for revert. Or, we'd have a revert. > > Either > > > > way > > > > > >> the > > > > > >> > > > > outcome > > > > > >> > > > > >> is > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > acceptable. > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 8:56 AM, Dima > > > Spivak > > > > < > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > dimaspi...@apache.org > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > I'm not sure that "There is already > > lots > > > > of > > > > > >> > > > half-baked > > > > > >> > > > > >> code > > > > > >> > > > > >> > in > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> the > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > branch, > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > so what's the harm in adding more?" > > is a > > > > > good > > > > > >> > code > > > > > >> > > > > commit > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > philosophy > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > for > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > a > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > fault-tolerant distributed data > store. > > > ;) > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > More seriously, a lack of test > > coverage > > > > for > > > > > >> > > existing > > > > > >> > > > > >> > features > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > shouldn't > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > be > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > used as justification for > introducing > > > new > > > > > >> > features > > > > > >> > > > with > > > > > >> > > > > >> the > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > same > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > shortcomings. Ultimately, it's the > end > > > > user > > > > > who > > > > > >> > > will > > > > > >> > > > > feel > > > > > >> > > > > >> > the > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> pain, > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > so > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > shouldn't we do everything we can to > > > > > mitigate > > > > > >> > that? > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > -Dima > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 8:46 AM, > > Vladimir > > > > > >> > Rodionov < > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > vladrodio...@gmail.com> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > Sean, > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > * have docs > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > Agree. We have a doc and backup is > > the > > > > > most > > > > > >> > > > > documented > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > feature > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > :), > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > we > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > will > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > release it shortly to Apache. > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > * have sunny-day correctness tests > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > Feature has close to 60 test > cases, > > > > which > > > > > >> run > > > > > >> > > for > > > > > >> > > > > >> approx > > > > > >> > > > > >> > 30 > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> min. > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > We > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > can > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > add more, if community do not mind > > :) > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > * have > > correctness-in-face-of-failure > > > > > tests > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > Any examples of these tests in > > > existing > > > > > >> > features? > > > > > >> > > > In > > > > > >> > > > > >> > works, > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > we > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > have a > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > clear > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > understanding of what should be > done > > > by > > > > > the > > > > > >> > time > > > > > >> > > of > > > > > >> > > > > 2.0 > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> release. > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > That is very close goal for us, to > > > > verify > > > > > IT > > > > > >> > > monkey > > > > > >> > > > > for > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> existing > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > code. > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > * don't rely on things outside of > > > HBase > > > > > for > > > > > >> > > normal > > > > > >> > > > > >> > operation > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > (okay > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > for > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > advanced operation) > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > We do not. > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > Enormous time has been spent > already > > > on > > > > > the > > > > > >> > > > > development > > > > > >> > > > > >> > and > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > testing > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > the > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > feature, it has passed our > internal > > > > tests > > > > > and > > > > > >> > > many > > > > > >> > > > > >> rounds > > > > > >> > > > > >> > of > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> code > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > reviews > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > by HBase committers. We do not > mind > > if > > > > > >> someone > > > > > >> > > from > > > > > >> > > > > >> HBase > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > community > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > (outside of HW) will review the > > code, > > > > but > > > > > it > > > > > >> > will > > > > > >> > > > > >> probably > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> takes > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > forever > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > to > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > wait for volunteer?, the feature > is > > > > quite > > > > > >> large > > > > > >> > > > (1MB+ > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> cumulative > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > patch) > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > 2.0 branch is full of half baked > > > > features, > > > > > >> most > > > > > >> > > of > > > > > >> > > > > them > > > > > >> > > > > >> > are > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > in > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > active > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > development, therefore I am not > > > > following > > > > > you > > > > > >> > > here, > > > > > >> > > > > >> Sean? > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > Why > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > HBASE-7912 > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > is > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > not good enough yet to be > integrated > > > > into > > > > > 2.0 > > > > > >> > > > branch? > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > -Vlad > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 8:23 AM, > Sean > > > > > Busbey < > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > bus...@apache.org > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 10:36 PM, > > > Josh > > > > > >> Elser < > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > josh.el...@gmail.com> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > So, the answer to Sean's > > original > > > > > >> question > > > > > >> > is > > > > > >> > > > "as > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > robust as > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > snapshots > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > presently are"? (independence > of > > > > > >> > > backup/restore > > > > > >> > > > > >> > failure > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > tolerance > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > from > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > snapshot failure tolerance) > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > Is this just a question WRT > > > context > > > > of > > > > > >> the > > > > > >> > > > > change, > > > > > >> > > > > >> or > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > is it > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > means > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > for a > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > veto > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > from you, Sean? Just trying to > > > make > > > > > sure > > > > > >> > I'm > > > > > >> > > > > >> following > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> along > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > adequately. > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > I'd say ATM I'm -0, bordering on > > -1 > > > > but > > > > > not > > > > > >> > for > > > > > >> > > > > >> reasons > > > > > >> > > > > >> > I > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > can > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > articulate > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > well. > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > Here's an attempt. > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > We've been trying to move, as a > > > > > community, > > > > > >> > > > towards > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > minimizing > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > risk > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > to > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > downstream folks by getting > > > "complete > > > > > >> enough > > > > > >> > > for > > > > > >> > > > > use" > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > gates > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> in > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > place > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > before we introduce new > features. > > > This > > > > > was > > > > > >> > > > spurred > > > > > >> > > > > >> by a > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > some > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > features > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > getting in half-baked and never > > > making > > > > > it > > > > > >> to > > > > > >> > > "can > > > > > >> > > > > >> really > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > use" > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > status > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > (I'm thinking of distributed log > > > > replay > > > > > and > > > > > >> > the > > > > > >> > > > > >> zk-less > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > assignment > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > stuff, I don't recall if there > was > > > > > more). > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > The gates, generally, included > > > things > > > > > like: > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > * have docs > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > * have sunny-day correctness > tests > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > * have > > > correctness-in-face-of-failure > > > > > tests > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > * don't rely on things outside > of > > > > HBase > > > > > for > > > > > >> > > > normal > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > operation > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > (okay > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > for > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > advanced operation) > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > As an example, we kept the MOB > > work > > > > off > > > > > in > > > > > >> a > > > > > >> > > > branch > > > > > >> > > > > >> and > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > out > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> of > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > master > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > until it could pass these > > criteria. > > > > The > > > > > big > > > > > >> > > > > exemption > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > we've > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> had > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > to > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > this was the hbase-spark > > > integration, > > > > > where > > > > > >> > we > > > > > >> > > > all > > > > > >> > > > > >> > agreed > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > it > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > could > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > land in master because it was > very > > > > well > > > > > >> > > isolated > > > > > >> > > > > (the > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > slide > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > away > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > from > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > including docs as a first-class > > part > > > > of > > > > > >> > > building > > > > > >> > > > up > > > > > >> > > > > >> that > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > integration > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > has led me to doubt the wisdom > of > > > this > > > > > >> > > decision). > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > We've also been treating > inclusion > > > in > > > > a > > > > > >> > > "probably > > > > > >> > > > > >> will > > > > > >> > > > > >> > be > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > released > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > to > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > downstream" branches as a higher > > > bar, > > > > > >> > requiring > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > * don't moderately impact > > > performance > > > > > when > > > > > >> > the > > > > > >> > > > > >> feature > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > isn't > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> in > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > use > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > * don't severely impact > > performance > > > > when > > > > > >> the > > > > > >> > > > > feature > > > > > >> > > > > >> is > > > > > >> > > > > >> > in > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> use > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > * either default-to-on or show > > > enough > > > > > >> demand > > > > > >> > to > > > > > >> > > > > >> believe > > > > > >> > > > > >> > a > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > non-trivial > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > number of folks will turn the > > > feature > > > > on > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > The above has kept MOB and > > > hbase-spark > > > > > >> > > > integration > > > > > >> > > > > >> out > > > > > >> > > > > >> > of > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > branch-1, > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > presumably while they've "gotten > > > more > > > > > >> stable" > > > > > >> > > in > > > > > >> > > > > >> master > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > from > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > the > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > odd > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > vendor inclusion. > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > Are we going to have a 2.0 > release > > > > > before > > > > > >> the > > > > > >> > > end > > > > > >> > > > > of > > > > > >> > > > > >> the > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> year? > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > We're > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > coming up on 1.5 years since the > > > > > release of > > > > > >> > > > version > > > > > >> > > > > >> 1.0; > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> seems > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > like > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > it's about time, though I > haven't > > > seen > > > > > any > > > > > >> > > > concrete > > > > > >> > > > > >> > plans > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> this > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > year. > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > Presuming we are going to have > one > > > by > > > > > the > > > > > >> end > > > > > >> > > of > > > > > >> > > > > the > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > year, it > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > seems a > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > bit close to still be adding in > > > > > "features > > > > > >> > that > > > > > >> > > > need > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > maturing" > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > on > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > the > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > branch. > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > The lack of a concrete plan for > > 2.0 > > > > > keeps > > > > > >> me > > > > > >> > > from > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > considering > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > these > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > things blocker at the moment. > But > > I > > > > know > > > > > >> > first > > > > > >> > > > hand > > > > > >> > > > > >> how > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > much > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > trouble > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > folks have had with other > features > > > > that > > > > > >> have > > > > > >> > > gone > > > > > >> > > > > >> into > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > downstream > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > facing releases without > robustness > > > > > checks > > > > > >> > (i.e. > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > replication), > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > and > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > I'm > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > concerned about what we're > setting > > > up > > > > if > > > > > >> 2.0 > > > > > >> > > goes > > > > > >> > > > > out > > > > > >> > > > > >> > with > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> this > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > feature in its current state. > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > -- > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > 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) > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > busbey > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
