We are allowed to debate if this should be in the tree or not. Given the lack of interest, as evidenced by incomplete state, lack of release, and lack of contribution, it is more than fair to discuss removal.
Here is my take: First of all, it is not released. There is no implied roadmap or support. Second, there do not seem to be any active maintainers or volunteers as such. Third, unless someone shows up with more patches for it there will be no polish or maturing, there can be no expectations of further improvement. That said, this is open source. New code contribution will change the facts as they stand. > On Nov 30, 2020, at 5:52 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 9:59 PM Stack <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 5:55 AM [email protected] < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Inline. >>> >>> On Sun, Nov 29, 2020, 9:18 AM 张铎(Duo Zhang) <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>>> I'm afraid it is not easy to be moved to hbase-operator-tools. >>>> >>>> You can see the code under the org.apache.hadoop.hbase.backup.master >>>> package, we need to set up log cleaner at master side, and also, >>>> the LogRollMasterProcedureManager class needs MasterServices(not >>>> MasterRpcServices), which means it must be used in the same process >> with >>>> HMaster. >>>> >>>> And I'm OK with purging this feature, especially if there is no >> developer >>>> who wants to maintain it. >>>> >>>> >>> Is the sole reason to purge this feature is no developer volunteering to >>> maintain this? >>> >>> >> I'd suggest this feature does not belong in core at all. >> >> And some of us have spent time reviewing the feature in the past and back >> then determined it needed lots of finishing work, test, and polish -- none >> of which it seems to have gotten since commit. >> >> You are using it Mallik? Tell us more please. How is it working for you? >> >> > It has been a decent v1 release for us. As pointed out by others, feature > should be polished and matured without debating if backup should be part of > core or not. Some of notable points are > > - Limitations like serial backup set runs per deployment bothered us. > - Minor logging enhancements for debugging, some NPE's, etc > - Bandwidth limits, incremental backup did not work outright. > > Since it is only a couple of months, we might not have seen a lot of corner > cases. > > >> S >> >> >>> >>>> For me, I suspect that the backup feature could be done more separately >>>> with the main cluster. We could use replication to backup the WALs, and >>> use >>>> Snapshot and ExportSnapshot to backup the HFiles. The feature could be >>> done >>>> as a separated project. >>>> >>>> Thanks. >>>> >>>> Stack <[email protected]> 于2020年11月20日周五 上午10:18写道： >>>> >>>>> It strikes me as work that has been abandoned with no supporting >>>> developer. >>>>> It has had no improvement and few commits other than adjustment >>> because a >>>>> backing dependency has changed since original contribution. It has >> not >>>> been >>>>> included in a release so has no users as yet. Does anyone use it or >>> want >>>>> it? >>> >>> >>> We have back ported this feature to 2.1.x and has been using for last few >>> months in few of our deployments. >>> >>> >>>> If not, I suggest we remove it. I could file an issue for it to be >>> >>>> added to hbase-operator-tools for some gallant dev to pick up if they >>>>> wanted to use this backup work? (I could help w/ the migration). >>>>> >>>>> What do others think? >>>>> >>>>> S >>>>> >>>> >>> >>
