Where do I go to get the current status of this feature? Looking in JIRA I see loads of issues open against backup including some against hbase-2.0.0 and no progress being made that I can discern.
Thanks, S On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 8:52 AM, Stack <[email protected]> wrote: > 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? >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > >>> >> >> >
