On 11/1/17 3:25 PM, Vladimir Rodionov wrote:
I've not done in-depth research so could be wrong about backup, but from
my
perch, I've seen the recent filings against backup, HBASE-19104-19109,
which strike me as pretty basic missing facility. The new issues go
without
comment (caveat a single question). I've seen no evidence of extensive
test
(scale?). The last issue I looked at has backup putting up two system
tables with presumptions about assignment order we do not (as yet)
support.
I've always had trouble eliciting state of the feature; summary of
capability and what is to do are hard to come by.
1. HBASE-19104 - 19109
None of them are basic, Stack. These requests came from SF after discussion
we had with them recently
No single comments is because I was out of country last week.
2. Backup tables are not system ones, they belong to a separate namespace -
"backup"
3. We make no assumptions on assignment order of these tables.
As for real scale testing and documentation , we still have time before
2.0GA. Can't be blocker IMO
I think I've put my foot in my mouth here, haven't I.
I'm reminded of the last discussion we had on the subject (pre-alpha
releases?) in which I agreed that we should get some scale testing done.
I remember putting some thought into what "backup's ITBLL" could look
like, but I think it got stalled.
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/28da9fdda69e6036e5371015807a592eccced93aea23f1cf11f02ee6@%3Cdev.hbase.apache.org%3E
Should this be the gate for inclusion for 2.0? I think all known
fault-tolerance issues given the current implementation are addressed
(as Vlad was saying earlier). Maybe there are still bugs lingering, but
that's the state of uncertainty we deal with, isn't it?
