Fine I'll cast a vote as -0. If I find time to test that could easily change to +1. Perhaps my vote won't be needed. I don't wish to block you.
> On Sep 6, 2016, at 6:55 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Andrew: > Do you think you would have some time this week ? > > Thanks > > On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 8:47 AM, Andrew Purtell <andrew.purt...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Busy at work, aiming for next week. >> >>> On Sep 1, 2016, at 8:44 AM, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Andrew: >>> HBASE-16255 has been resolved. >>> >>> Kindly provide your feedback. >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 11:06 AM, Andrew Purtell < >> andrew.purt...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I plan to spin up a test cluster with clusterdock and try running the IT >>>> under a number of different scenarios. I understand snapshots have to >>>> function so baseline would be the calm monkey. >>>> >>>> Unless you have some other automated way for me to run the new >>>> functionality repeatedly, the IT is it. >>>> >>>>>> On Aug 20, 2016, at 10:59 AM, Vladimir Rodionov < >> vladrodio...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Not sure what do you mean, Andrew by "trying out the branch via the >> IT", >>>>> but we do not recommend running this with monkey enabled. >>>>> It has not been tested in a such scenario yet and frankly speaking it >> is >>>>> not supposed to work (snapshots will fail anyway and we depends on >>>>> snapshots) >>>>> >>>>> -Vladimir >>>>> >>>>> On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 10:29 AM, Andrew Purtell < >>>> andrew.purt...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Let's commit the IT to the branch, if you think the v5 patch is ready >>>> for >>>>>> commit Ted. >>>>>> >>>>>> I will be able to spend some time next week trying out the branch via >>>> the >>>>>> IT, and poking around with the new tools. After that I feel like I'll >> be >>>>>> informed enough to vote on a branch merge vote. >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Aug 19, 2016, at 12:38 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> IT test is provided on HBASE-16255. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Any other comment ? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 9:09 PM, Dima Spivak <dspi...@cloudera.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Any chance for an IT test being added to the branch first? I'd love >> to >>>>>> put >>>>>>>> it through the paces with clusterdock to make sure it behaves well >>>> with >>>>>>>> fault injection and the like. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -Dima >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 2, 2016, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Any more comments from the community on whether the merge can be >>>>>>>> conducted >>>>>>>>> ? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 12:03 PM, Vladimir Rodionov < >>>>>>>> vladrodio...@gmail.com >>>>>>>>> <javascript:;>> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Carter Shanklin posted a blog article about the feature: >>>>>>>>>> Some use cases and examples of a command line interface usage. >>>>>>>>> https://hortonworks.com/blog/coming-hdp-2-5-incremental- >>>>>>>> backup-restore-apache-hbase-apache-phoenix/ >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -Vlad >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 1:25 PM, Vladimir Rodionov < >>>>>>>>> vladrodio...@gmail.com <javascript:;> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Ok, got it. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -Vlad >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 12:15 PM, Enis Söztutar <e...@apache.org >>>>>>>>> <javascript:;>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> We keep the WALs which can accumulate a lot if the use case is >> to >>>>>>>> only >>>>>>>>>> do >>>>>>>>>>>> backups infrequently. This will definitely cause issues since >> HDFS >>>>>>>>> space >>>>>>>>>>>> will get filled up. That is why we may need an option for having >>>>>>>>>>>> incremental backups not used, and WAL references being deleted. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Enis >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 6:33 PM, Vladimir Rodionov < >>>>>>>>>>>> vladrodio...@gmail.com <javascript:;>> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Why anyone will ever need disabling incremental backups? If you >>>> do >>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>>>> need >>>>>>>>>>>>> it - just run only full backups. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> -Vlad >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 6:21 PM, Enis Söztutar < >> e...@apache.org >>>>>>>>> <javascript:;>> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Matteo for chiming in. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 5:02 PM, Matteo Bertozzi < >>>>>>>>>>>>> theo.berto...@gmail.com <javascript:;>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I did some review in the early beginning, but then lost track >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but I'd like to give a quick review to the full code once >>>>>>>> people >>>>>>>>>>>> here >>>>>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ok with getting this feature in master (2.0). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (let say we put a deadline for reviews, like 1 week for >>>>>>>>> reviewing >>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> full >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stuff after everyone agrees to get this in. just to avoid >>>>>>>>> holding >>>>>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> too long, but still enough time to have people that are >>>>>>>>> interested >>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> look >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at it. with did the same thing for MOB with a mega patch >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://reviews.apache.org/r/36391/) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> This sounds good. Vladimir / Ted how do you guys want to >> handle >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>> merge? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> As a giant patch or a rebase of code in the branch and through >>>>>>>> git >>>>>>>>>>>> merge. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> We need to run a vote when the to-be-merged branched is ready. >>>>>>>> We >>>>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>>>>>> set a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> vote timeout for at least 1 week. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> most of the code seemed isolated from the beginning, few >>>>>>>> changes >>>>>>>>>>>> here >>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there in the core. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so, this side of things seems ok to me. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maybe some work to add IT tests as mentioned above, but that >>>>>>>>>> should >>>>>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> take long. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't know if there are already docs, but that is another >>>>>>>>> thing >>>>>>>>>> we >>>>>>>>>>>>> may >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want to get in with the merge. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a minimal coverage at least on how to use the feature, and >>>>>>>> maybe >>>>>>>>>>>>> calling >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out as experimental? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my main concern were around incremental backups. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm still not convinced around the fact that because the WALs >>>>>>>>>>>> contain >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regions of multiple tables >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the incremental backup will keep around WALs with some data >>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>> we >>>>>>>>>>>>> don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really want in the backup (for space or maybe security >>>>>>>> reason). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then there was the question about for how long should I take >>>>>>>>>>>>>> incrementals, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before deciding that a fresh full backup is less costly in >>>>>>>> terms >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> space. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but I think this incremental merge/compaction was a feature >> on >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> roadmap >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as Phase3. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which I think is ok to get later on, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maybe just call out a lifecycle example on the docs under >>>>>>>> "best >>>>>>>>>>>>>> practices". >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think this will depend on the use case, and other factors >> like >>>>>>>>>>>>> bandwidth >>>>>>>>>>>>>> available, how much data >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the user is willing to lose in case of catastrophic failure >> and >>>>>>>>> how >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "expensive" is full backup versus >>>>>>>>>>>>>> incremental one. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The full backup should also be useable by default, so maybe we >>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>>>>> make >>>>>>>>>>>>> an >>>>>>>>>>>>>> option to not even keep WAL files, and completely disable >>>>>>>>>> incremental >>>>>>>>>>>>>> backups? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Enis >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has anyone interested in using backups looked at the doc in >>>>>>>>>>>> HBASE-7912? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is the current design of incremental backup acceptable for >>>>>>>>>> everyone >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wanting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to use this feature? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (maybe this should be a question for the @user list and not >>>>>>>> dev) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is there anyone already using this feature or it is just dev >>>>>>>>>> testing >>>>>>>>>>>>> it? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to me will be interesting having a use-case/workflow example, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to see if in the real world my concerns about incremental are >>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>>>>> showing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 1:35 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com >>>>>>>>> <javascript:;>> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gentle ping on this subject. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The changes are mostly non-intrusive. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> More comments are welcome. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 9:29 PM, Vladimir Rodionov < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vladrodio...@gmail.com <javascript:;> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not that hard, Andrew. I will open JIRA. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Vlad >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 8:46 PM, Andrew Purtell < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> andrew.purt...@gmail.com <javascript:;>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How hard would it be to convert what you've been using >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> test >>>>>>>>>>>>> end >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> end >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> during dev into an IT? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 11, 2016, at 5:31 PM, Vladimir Rodionov < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vladrodio...@gmail.com <javascript:;> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there an integration test in hbase-it yet? If >>>>>>>> not, >>>>>>>>>> any >>>>>>>>>>>>> tips >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semi-automateable way to take backups and restore >>>>>>>>> them? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We do not have yet, but we have a lot of unit tests. >>>>>>>> We >>>>>>>>>>>>> provide 2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> API >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> backup: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Admin.getBackupAdmin >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Command - line via hbase command. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Everything is straightforward. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Vlad >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 5:23 PM, Dima Spivak < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dspi...@cloudera.com <javascript:;>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there an integration test in hbase-it yet? If not, >>>>>>>>> any >>>>>>>>>>>> tips >>>>>>>>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semi-automateable way to take backups and restore >>>>>>>> them? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Dima >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 6:42 PM, Vladimir Rodionov < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vladrodio...@gmail.com <javascript:;> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, wrong links: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> These are the phases: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Phase 1: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-14030 >>>>>>>>>>> 14030 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Phase 2: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-14123 >>>>>>>>>>> 14123 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Phase 3: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-14414 >>>>>>>>>>> 14414 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Vlad >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 4:41 PM, Vladimir Rodionov < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vladrodio...@gmail.com <javascript:;> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> These are the phases: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Phase 1: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-7912 >>>>>>>>>>> 14030 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Phase 2: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-7912 >>>>>>>>>>> 14123 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Phase 3: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-7912 >>>>>>>>>>> 14414 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Vlad >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 12:21 PM, Enis Söztutar < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> e...@apache.org <javascript:;>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As you guys may already be familiar, Vladimir, >>>>>>>> Ted, >>>>>>>>>>>> Jerry >>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> others >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been developing the backup / restore functionality >>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> series >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> committed in the separate branch HBASE-7912[1]. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Backup / Restore functionality is tracked as a >>>>>>>>> 4-phase >>>>>>>>>>>>>> project, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> first two phases are complete and useable. We are >>>>>>>>> now >>>>>>>>>>>>> working >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Phase 3 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> items, which are mostly improvements. We think >>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> current >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> branch containing all Phase 1 and Phase 2 items, >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>> some >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Phase 3 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> items >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> useable on it's own, and we do not have to wait >>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>> all >>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subtickets >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be finished to make it completely useable (as >>>>>>>> follow >>>>>>>>>> up >>>>>>>>>>>>>> tickets >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mostly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improvements or optimizations). The improvements >>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>> works >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> backwards compatible with the existing stuff. >>>>>>>> Thus, >>>>>>>>> we >>>>>>>>>>>>> would >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> propose that the branch HBASE-7912 be merged into >>>>>>>>>>>> master. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parent >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jira >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has a design doc that goes into details about the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> design >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> choices in case you are interested[2]. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Most of the changes are largely non-intrusive and >>>>>>>>>>>> confined >>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> backup subsystem. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The unit tests have been passing on manual runs >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (hortonworks) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been running the integration tests as well as some >>>>>>>>>> other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shell-based >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> system >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests on a forked version of the code. Most of the >>>>>>>>>> work >>>>>>>>>>>> has >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reviewed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by 1, 2 or 3 committers already (mostly Ted, >>>>>>>> myself >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jerry). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you guys think? Is it time to call a vote? >>>>>>>>> Any >>>>>>>>>>>>>> concerns >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> feedback >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> appreciated. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] >>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-7912 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2] >>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12816339/ >>>>>>>> HBaseBackupAndRestore%20-0.91.pdf >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Enis >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> -Dima >>
