So the first priority is to make progress on HBCK2? If we all agree, let's start to work.
Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> 于2019年1月18日周五 下午12:31写道： > Sorry, let me add... Check all the boxes on that list and I'm +1 for moving > the stable pointer (modulo some time to pound on the candidate to really > put it through its paces, like two weeks of chaos...) > > On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 8:28 PM Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > I do not believe we should move the stable pointer to any 2.x until HBCK2 > > is feature complete. We can discuss what that milestone should look like. > > At a minimum, I think we need: > > > > - Rebuild meta from region metadata in the filesystem, aka offline > > meta rebuild. > > - Fix assignment errors (undeployed regions, double assignments (yes, > > should not be possible), etc) > > - Fix region holes, overlaps, and other errors in the region chain > > - Fix failed split and merge transactions that have failed to roll > > back due to some bug (related to previous) > > - Enumerate store files to determine file level corruption and > > sideline corrupt files > > - Fix hfile link problems (dangling / broken) > > > > This is a list of the real problems I have had to fix in production at > > least once (in the past 10 years...). > > > > On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 8:19 PM 张铎(Duo Zhang) <palomino...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > >> There are still lots of small new features which we want to integrate > into > >> branch-2 so I'm -1 on making release directly from branch-2. Backporting > >> at > >> once before release is a pain I'd say, I've tried this many times > >> recently, > >> as we have to follow up the community version...Let's make a branch-2.2 > >> when we want to release 2.2.0, and maybe also retire the branch-2.0? > >> > >> For the stable pointer, I think 2.1.x maybe a good candidate? Though we > >> know that we may still have some bugs for the AMv2, but actually we all > >> know that the AMv1 for all the branch-1.x also has lots of bugs, that's > >> why > >> hbck is very important. > >> > >> And also +! on making progress on HBCK2, we need to port he useful > >> features > >> of HBCK1 to HBCK2. There is no software can guarantee that there is no > >> bug, > >> so FWIW we should have a way to fix broken clusters. > >> > >> Sean Busbey <bus...@apache.org> 于2019年1月18日周五 上午11:47写道： > >> > >> > There are a few related topics I'd like to discuss and I figured this > >> > subject line is the most likely to get a bit of attention. :) > >> > > >> > First, I'd like us all to get on the same page wrt the current state > >> > of branch-2. Personally, I don't think it can be released as-is with a > >> > 2.y version because folks can't rolling upgrade from 2.0 or 2.1 to it > >> > due to the current implementation of HBASE-20881. As Duo has mentioned > >> > a couple of times, folks have to ensure there are no region > >> > transitions around during the upgrade. I think that will be > >> > prohibitive for folks looking to upgrade. What do other folks think? > >> > > >> > Second, I think our recent discussions around the need for shifting to > >> > more minor releases for HBase 1.y also applies to the 2.y branches. > >> > branch-2 hasn't had a release since 2.1.0 came out in July 2018. > >> > That's a scary long amount of time. I think it contributes to us > >> > ending up with changes like the above since it's easy to think about > >> > the branch as something that has a lot of time before the next > >> > release. > >> > > >> > Personally, I'd like to see us skip making minor-release specific > >> > branches for a bit unless a CVE fix or something comes up. Ideally, > >> > that would mean we work towards a 2.2.0 release directly from branch-2 > >> > and then 2.2.1, etc. When we have a feature that's ready to backport > >> > from the master branch for a release we then update branch-2's version > >> > to be 2.3.0. > >> > > >> > Or maybe we try set a regular cadence to feature releases by having > >> > branch-2 release a new minor, two months of new maintenance releases, > >> > followed by a new minor. That would mean after the last of the > >> > maintenance releases we'd have a window of a few weeks where we can > >> > all decide which features in master are mature enough to backport for > >> > the new minor release. > >> > > >> > Lastly, what would it take for folks to feel confident moving the > >> > 'stable' pointer to a HBase 2.y? Is there a major gap still on > >> > assignment stability? Is it a more thorough look at performance? More > >> > time to ensure HBCK2 has good coverage of failure modes that need it? > >> > > >> > > > > > > -- > > Best regards, > > Andrew > > > > Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from truth's > > decrepit hands > > - A23, Crosstalk > > > > > -- > Best regards, > Andrew > > Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from truth's > decrepit hands > - A23, Crosstalk >
