HBASE-14414 On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 1:14 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
> 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 <st...@duboce.net> wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 6:48 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote: > > > >> On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 3:17 PM, Vladimir Rodionov < > >> vladrodio...@gmail.com> 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 <d...@hortonworks.com> > >>> 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 <vladrodio...@gmail.com> > >>> > Sent: Monday, November 21, 2016 8:34 PM > >>> > To: dev@hbase.apache.org > >>> > 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 <st...@duboce.net> wrote: > >>> > > >>> > > 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? > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > >> > >> > > >
