On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 1:49 PM, Stephen Jiang <syuanjiang...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Enis, what I suggested was that even no repair is suggested, we still > should disable master maint tasks in online check for more deterministic > result. > I see, makes sense as long as we are finished with HBASE-16008. > > Thanks > Stephen > > On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Enis Söztutar <enis....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > check out the corresponding shouldXXX commands: > > > > public boolean shouldDisableBalancer() { > > > > return fixAny || disableBalancer; > > > > } > > If fixAny which is true if any of the -fix is run, we disable the master > > chores. > > > > For -fixHdfsOverlaps and -fixHdfsHoles, I've mentioned this in the jira I > > think, but we should deprecate those, and do -fixOverlaps and -fixHoles > > separately. These two new commands will look at BOTH hdfs and meta to > > decide on what to do. > > > > Enis > > > > On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 12:30 PM, Stephen Jiang <syuanjiang...@gmail.com > > > > wrote: > > > > > } else if (cmd.equals("-disableBalancer")) { > > > > > > setDisableBalancer(); > > > > > > } else if (cmd.equals("-disableSplitAndMerge")) { > > > > > > setDisableSplitAndMerge(); > > > > > > In HBCK, we will either use the options to disable master maintenance > > work > > > (see above) or the master maintenance are disabled during repair. > > > > > > I think we should always disable master maintenance work during online > > > HBCK, because balancer moving regions around during online check; or > > > split/merge regions during online check would have unexpected side > > effect. > > > > > > How do you think? > > > > > > Thanks > > > Stephen > > > > > > Also, I think we have too many options. We really should reduce > options > > in > > > hbck so that it is more user friendly (eg. currently implementation of > > > -fixHdfsOverlaps would almost 100% create hole, it does not make sense > to > > > run it alone, it should always run with -fixHdfsHoles option; and very > > > likely with -fixMeta option) > > > > > >