On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 6:48 PM, Stack <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 3:17 PM, Vladimir Rodionov <[email protected] > > wrote: > >> >> and/or he answered most of the review feedback >> >> No, questions are still open, but I do not see any blockers and we have >> HBASE-16940 to address these questions. >> >> > Agree. No blockers but stuff that should be dealt with (No one will pay me > any attention once merge goes in -- smile). > > Let me clarify the above. I want review addressed before merge happens. Sorry if any confusion. St.Ack
> St.Ack > > > >> On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 3:04 PM, Devaraj Das <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> > Hi Stack, hats off to you for spending so much time on this! Thanks! >> From >> > my understanding, Vlad has raised follow-up jiras for the issues you >> > raised, and/or he answered most of the review feedback. So, do you >> think we >> > could do a merge vote now? >> > Devaraj. >> > ________________________________________ >> > From: Vladimir Rodionov <[email protected]> >> > Sent: Monday, November 21, 2016 8:34 PM >> > To: [email protected] >> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSSION] Merge Backup / Restore - Branch HBASE-7912 >> > >> > >> I have spent a good bit of time reviewing and testing this feature. I >> > would >> > >> like my review and concerns addressed and I'd like it to be clear >> how; >> > >> either explicit follow-on issues, pointers to where in the patch or >> doc >> > my >> > >> remarks have been catered to, etc. Until then, I am against commit. >> > >> > Stack, mega patch review comments will be addressed in the dedicated >> JIRA: >> > HBASE-16940 >> > I have open several other JIRAs to address your other comments (not on >> > review board). >> > >> > Details are here (end of the thread): >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-14123 >> > >> > Let me know what else should we do to move merge forward. >> > >> > -Vlad >> > >> > >> > On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 4:54 PM, Stack <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > > On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 3:53 PM, Ted Yu <[email protected]> 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 < >> > > [email protected]> >> > > > 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 < >> [email protected]> >> > > > wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > > Stack and others, anything else on the patch? Merge to master >> now? >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > >
