Hmm, the next on your list (of kicked out from branch v2) should be AM v2 I presume?
-Vlad On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 4:04 PM, stack <[email protected]> wrote: > In spite of repeated requests for eng summary of state of this feature -- > summary of what is in 2.0, what is not, what the capabilities are, how well > it has been tested and at what scale -- all I get, when the requests are > not ignored, are pointers to lists of ill-describing jiras and some pending > user facing doc update. > > For other features, mob or region server groups, I know that they have been > running at scale in production for as much as a year and more. I have some > confidence these items basically work. For backup/restore I have no such > sense even after spending time in review and trying to use the feature. > > As release manager, I have say over what makes it into a release. Unless > the work is done to convince me that backup/restore is more than a lump of > code and a few unit tests that can pass on some fellows laptop, I am going > to kick it out of branch-2. Let the feature harden more in master branch > before it ships in a release. > > S > > On Sep 8, 2017 10:59 PM, "Vladimir Rodionov" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> Have I grasped the state of things correctly, Vlad? > > > > Josh, the only thing which is still pending is doc update. All other > > features are good to have but not a blockers for 2.0 release. > > > > -Vlad > > > > On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 10:42 PM, Vladimir Rodionov < > [email protected] > > > > > wrote: > > > > > >> What testing and at what > > > >> scale has testing been done? > > > > > > Do we have have that for other features? > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 10:41 PM, Vladimir Rodionov < > > [email protected] > > > > wrote: > > > > > >> >> It asks: "How do I figure what of backup/restore feature is going > to > > >> be in > > >> >>hbase-2.0.0? > > >> > > >> Hmm, wait for doc update. > > >> > > >> > > >> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 2:39 PM, Stack <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > > >>> HBASE-14414 is a JIRA with a list of random seeming issues w/ > > >>> non-descript > > >>> summaries: "Add nonce support to TableBackupProcedure, BackupID must > > >>> include backup set name, ...". The last comment in that issue is from > > >>> July. > > >>> It asks: "How do I figure what of backup/restore feature is going to > be > > >>> in > > >>> hbase-2.0.0? Thanks Vladimir Rodionov > > >>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ViewProfile.jspa? > name=vrodionov > > >>> >." > > >>> to which there is no answer. Doc update is TODO. > > >>> > > >>> Where is the summary of the capability in hbase-2? What testing and > at > > >>> what > > >>> scale has testing been done? Is this 'stable or experimental'? If I > > can't > > >>> get basic info on this feature though I ask repeatedly, what hope > does > > >>> the > > >>> poor old operator have? > > >>> > > >>> St.Ack > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 1:59 PM, Vladimir Rodionov < > > >>> [email protected]> > > >>> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> > HBASE-14414 > > >>> > > > >>> > On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 1:14 PM, Stack <[email protected]> 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 <[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? > > >>> > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > >>> > > > > >>> > > >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > > > > >
