OK, let me find the original HBCK2 issue and see how can we make progress on it.
BTW, on scan performance, Zheng Hu has done a work to get about 40% performance back in this issue for 100% scan case on ycsb https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21657 Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> 于2019年1月19日周六 上午8:14写道： > Lars was testing tip of branch-2 with Phoenix and said scans were 50% > slower than branch-1. I’ll try and get him to provide more details. Anyway > after hbck2 is complete issues like that will come out in the testing we’d > do as part of sanity checking a move of the pointer. > > On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 4:02 PM Zach York <zyork.contribut...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > I agree with the sentiment around HBCK2. I think these kind of recovery > > tools are essential before marking something stable. > > > > I also remember when we did testing around HBase 2.x/2.1 that we were > > getting perf degradations and couldn't seem to get performance to be as > > good as we were getting in the 1.x line. > > > > - Zach > > > > On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 11:06 PM Pankaj kr <pankaj...@huawei.com> wrote: > > > > > Yeah, HBCK2/ OfflineMetaRepair tools are really required to migrate old > > > version data to HBase-2. We have use cases where we are using these > tools > > > to rebuild the meta for further region assignment. > > > Similar discussion is going on HBASE-21665, after fixing the NPE and > > > rebuilding the meta, master don't assign the regions as we skip the > empty > > > regions while loading meta during master startup. > > > > > > A big +1 from my side on this... > > > > > > Regards, > > > Pankaj > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: 张铎(Duo Zhang) [mailto:palomino...@gmail.com] > > > Sent: 18 January 2019 11:55 > > > To: HBase Dev List <dev@hbase.apache.org> > > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Moving towards a branch-2 line that can get the > > > 'stable' pointer. > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > -- > Best regards, > Andrew > > Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from truth's > decrepit hands > - A23, Crosstalk >
