To your question, I think it is misplaced (at least to me). Go back and read what I wrote you just today.
As for the backup feature, once the work for HBASE-15227 is committed and it is resolved, I think we'd be interested in trying it out, and until then I am not personally interested in its inclusion in a release, but that is just me. > On Sep 9, 2017, at 5:58 PM, Vladimir Rodionov <vladrodio...@gmail.com> wrote: > > That was I thought. Thanks. Can you tell me that you are not considering AM > v2 as an unfinished and untested feature? The question to Stack as well. > > On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 5:53 PM, Andrew Purtell <andrew.purt...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> No all I have to do is pay attention to words you have written yourself in >> emails and on JIRA. Don't argue with us not to believe our lying eyes, >> consider finishing the work. I'll be happy to try it out when you indicate >> it can work if anything happens to fail on the cluster at the time. Until >> then there are a lot of other things need doing first. >> >> >> On Sep 9, 2017, at 5:25 PM, Vladimir Rodionov <vladrodio...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>>>> but the impression we have is it is unfinished and untested. >>> To make a conclusion that "feature is not finished and tested" you have >>> had to test it at least. >>> Andrew, If you have discovered issues, why wouldn't you open bug JIRAs? >>> >>> -Vlad >>> >>> On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 4:40 PM, Andrew Purtell <andrew.purt...@gmail.com >>> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> For what it's worth, I think AMv2 is the main reason to have a 2.0 in >> the >>>> first place, so I would both agree it needs a lot more testing and yet I >>>> would want us to have a 2.0 release as the vehicle for getting that to >>>> happen. For other features without testing from a number of parties or >> at >>>> scale the value proposition is less clear and it's fine by me for the >> RM to >>>> set them aside for future releases. >>>> >>>> Also, I can relay that there is some interest where I work in utilizing >>>> HBASE-7912 but the impression we have is it is unfinished and untested. >> So >>>> for now we are ignoring it and continuing with home grown solutions. >> Part >>>> of the problem is fault tolerance was left to the last phase(s) and yet >> it >>>> is an essential property for adoption for serious work. The best way to >>>> resolve this IMHO is for the developers of this feature to complete >> those >>>> unfinished JIRAs, especially concerning resilience to failures. >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Sep 9, 2017, at 4:11 PM, Vladimir Rodionov <vladrodio...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> 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 <saint....@gmail.com> 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" <vladrodio...@gmail.com> >>>>>> 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 < >>>>>> vladrodio...@gmail.com >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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 < >>>>>>> vladrodio...@gmail.com >>>>>>>>> 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 <st...@duboce.net> 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 < >>>>>>>>>> vladrodio...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 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? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>
