> Let's gather a few stories on it working for folks in production and move the pointer then. Agree, XiaoMi is making parts of the online clusters upgrade to HBase2.2.x, I think Guanghao will share the practices some time later. Thanks.
On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 12:09 AM Stack <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 4:58 PM Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > For what it’s worth I had previously been concerned about the disparity > > between hbck capability in 1.x and 2.x but after review of the recent > work > > I believe that is no longer true. Put another way, it is reasonable to > > claim it on par. > > > > > Thanks Andrew for chiming in. > > > > > As for moving the stable pointer I don’t personally have enough > experience > > with HBase 2 to weigh in but will trust the opinions of those that do. > > > > > > > Let's gather a few stories on it working for folks in production and move > the pointer then. > > Thanks, > S > > > > > > On Sep 14, 2019, at 8:44 AM, Stack <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > HBASE-21745 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21745>, the > > issue > > > addressing gaps between hbck1 and hbck2 was closed a few days back > after > > a > > > bunch of work by a kaleidoscope of folks. The release notes section > tries > > > to describe what was added by HBASE-21745. Shout if you think the claim > > at > > > the end of the release notes section that hbck2 now is on par or beyond > > > what hbck1 offered is problematic. Otherwise, will proceed as though it > > is > > > the case. > > > > > > Suggestion: Given that hbase 2.2.1 will ship soon and > > hbase-operator-tools > > > 1.0.0 with latest hbase-hbck2 should get an RC inside the next week or > > so, > > > if feedback that 2.2.1 looks good, give 2.2.2 (with bug fixes only) the > > > stable pointer? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > S > > > > > >> On Sat, Jan 26, 2019 at 11:31 AM Stack <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > > >> As per Sean, bypass with optional 'force' (override) and recurse for > > case > > >> where a procedure had spawned children was the mechanism Allan > > implemented > > >> after a chat about merits of procedure delete. I found it of use doing > > >> fixup to clusters I'd intentionally damaged testing candidates. > > Procedures > > >> are usually part of a fabric with relations that an operator might > have > > >> trouble unraveling. It was thought that the bypass would be safer > than a > > >> delete, likely to cause more damage than solution. > > >> > > >> Interested in the issues you are seeing on Master branch Sergey. > > >> > > >> Thanks, > > >> S > > >> > > >>> On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 1:54 PM Sean Busbey <[email protected]> > wrote: > > >>> > > >>> that's already present, see the README for the "bypass" command: > > >>> > > >>> > https://github.com/apache/hbase-operator-tools/tree/master/hbase-hbck2 > > >>> > > >>> On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 3:40 PM Sergey Shelukhin > > >>> <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> I think one thing that is needed for HBCK2 for AMv2 is to be able to > > >>> delete single procedures from store. > > >>>> We are evaluating master (whose assignment is very similar to > > branch-2) > > >>> right now and I have to delete proc WAL pretty much every day because > > some > > >>> procedure(s) are in bad state, but deleting the entire WAL also > causes > > >>> other issues. > > >>>> It should be possible to remove some offending procedure while > master > > >>> is offline and/or online. > > >>>> > > >>>> -----Original Message----- > > >>>> From: 张铎(Duo Zhang) <[email protected]> > > >>>> Sent: Friday, January 18, 2019 5:52 PM > > >>>> To: HBase Dev List <[email protected]> > > >>>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Moving towards a branch-2 line that can get > the > > >>> 'stable' pointer. > > >>>> > > >>>> OK, the original issue is HBCK2 for AMv2, but here we need to do > more, > > >>> not only for AMv2. > > >>>> > > >>>> Let me open a new issue and post what Andrew said above there. > > >>>> > > >>> > > >> > > >
