On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 3:53 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks, Matteo. > > bq. restore is not clear if given an incremental id it will do the full > restore from full up to that point or if i need to apply manually > everything > > The restore takes into consideration of the dependent backup(s). > So there is no need to apply preceding backup(s) manually. > > I ask this question on the issue. It is not clear from the usage or doc how to run a restore from incremental. Can you fix in doc and usage how so I can be clear and try it. Currently I am stuck verifying a round trip backup restore made of incrementals.
Thanks, S > On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 3:48 PM, Matteo Bertozzi <theo.berto...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > I did one last pass to the mega patch. I don't see anything major that > > should block the merge. > > > > - most of the code is isolated in the backup package > > - all the backup code is client side > > - there are few changes to the server side, mainly for cleaners, wal > > rolling and similar (which is ok) > > - there is a good number of tests, and an integration test > > > > the code seems to have still some left overs from the old implementation, > > and some stuff needs a cleanup. but I don't think this should be used as > an > > argument to block the merge. I think the guys will keep working on this > and > > they may also get help of others once the patch is in master. > > > > I still have my concerns about the current limitations, but these are > > things already planned for phase 3, so some of this stuff may even be in > > the final 2.0. > > but as long as we have a "current limitations" section in the user guide > > mentioning important stuff like the ones below, I'm ok with it. > > - if you write to the table with Durability.SKIP_WALS your data will not > > be in the incremental-backup > > - if you bulkload files that data will not be in the incremental backup > > (HBASE-14417) > > - the incremental backup will not only contains the data of the table > you > > specified but also the regions from other tables that are on the same set > > of RSs (HBASE-14141) ...maybe a note about security around this topic > > - the incremental backup will not contains just the "latest row" between > > backup A and B, but it will also contains all the updates occurred in > > between. but the restore does not allow you to restore up to a certain > > point in time, the restore will always be up to the "latest backup > point". > > - you should limit the number of "incremental" up to N (or maybe SIZE), > to > > avoid replay time becoming the bottleneck. (HBASE-14135) > > > > I'll be ok even with the above not being in the final 2.0, > > but i'd like to see as blocker for the final 2.0 (not the merge) > > - the backup code moved in an hbase-backup module > > - and some more work around tools, especially to try to unify and make > > simple the backup experience (simple example: in some case there is a > > backup_id argument in others a backupId argument. or things like.. > restore > > is not clear if given an incremental id it will do the full restore from > > full up to that point or if i need to apply manually everything). > > > > in conclusion, I think we can open a merge vote. I'll be +1 on it, and I > > think we should try to reject -1 with just a "code cleanup" motivation, > > since there will still be work going on on the code after the merge. > > > > Matteo > > > > > > On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 10:54 PM, Devaraj Das <d...@hortonworks.com> > wrote: > > > > > Stack and others, anything else on the patch? Merge to master now? > > > > > >
