we should probably have a "current limitations" section in the user guide (maybe near the technical details), some of this stuff may be in the final 2.0 since some tasks are marked as phase3, but I think is important to mention stuff like: - if you write to the table with Durability.SKIP_WALS your data will not be in the incremental-backup - if you bulkload files that data will not be in the incremental backup (HBASE-14417) - the incremental backup will not only contains the data of the table you specified but also the regions from other tables that are on the same set of RSs (HBASE-14141) ...maybe a note about security around this topic - the incremental backup will not contains just the "latest row" between backup A and B, but it will also contains all the updates occurred in between. but the restore does not allow you to restore up to a certain point in time, the restore will always be up to the "latest backup point". - you should limit the number of "incremental" up to N (or maybe SIZE), to avoid replay time becoming the bottleneck. (HBASE-14135)
On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 12:25 PM, Vladimir Rodionov <vladrodio...@gmail.com> wrote: > User Guide, prepared by our tech writer Frank Welsh, was attached to > HBASE-7912. > > -Vlad > > On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 12:16 PM, Vladimir Rodionov <vladrodio...@gmail.com > > > wrote: > > > Do not worry Sean, doc is coming today as a preview and our writer Frank > > will be working on a putting it into Apache repo. Timeline depends on > > Franks schedule but I hope we will get it rather sooner than later. > > > > As for failure testing, we are focusing only on a consistent state of > > backup system data in a presence of any type of failures, We are not > going > > to implement anything more "fancy", than that. We allow both: backup and > > restore to fail. What we do not allow is to have system data corrupted. > > Will it suffice for you? Do you have any other concerns, you want us to > > address? > > > > -Vlad > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 10:56 AM, Sean Busbey <bus...@apache.org> wrote: > > > >> "docs will come to Apache soon" does not address my concern around docs > at > >> all, unless said docs have already made it into the project repo. I > don't > >> want third party resources for using a major and important feature of > the > >> project, I want us to provide end users with what they need to get the > job > >> done. > >> > >> I see some calls for patience on the failure testing, but the appeal to > us > >> having done a bad job of requiring proper tests of previous features > just > >> makes me more concerned about not getting them here. I don't want to set > >> yet another bad example that will then be pointed to in the future. > >> > >> On Sep 8, 2016 10:50, "Ted Yu" <yuzhih...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> > Is there any concern which is not addressed ? > >> > > >> > Do we need another Vote thread ? > >> > > >> > Thanks > >> > > >> > On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 9:21 AM, Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> > > Vlad, > >> > > > >> > > I apologize for using the term 'half-baked' in a way that could > seem a > >> > > description of HBASE-7912. I meant that as a general hypothetical. > >> > > > >> > > On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 9:36 AM, Vladimir Rodionov < > >> > vladrodio...@gmail.com> > >> > > wrote: > >> > > > >> > > > >> I'm not sure that "There is already lots of half-baked code in > >> the > >> > > > branch, > >> > > > so what's the harm in adding more?" > >> > > > > >> > > > I meant - not production - ready yet. This is 2.0 development > branch > >> > and, > >> > > > hence many features are in works, > >> > > > not being tested well etc. I do not consider backup as half baked > >> > > feature - > >> > > > it has passed our internal QA and has very good doc, which we will > >> > > provide > >> > > > to Apache shortly. > >> > > > > >> > > > -Vlad > >> > > > > >> > > > On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 9:13 AM, Andrew Purtell < > apurt...@apache.org > >> > > >> > > > wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > > > We shouldn't admit half baked changes that won't be finished. > >> However > >> > > in > >> > > > > this case the crew working on this feature are long timers and > >> less > >> > > > likely > >> > > > > than just about anyone to leave something in a half baked state. > >> Of > >> > > > course > >> > > > > there is no guarantee how anything will turn out, but I am > >> willing to > >> > > > take > >> > > > > a little on faith if they feel their best path forward now is to > >> > merge > >> > > to > >> > > > > trunk. I only wish I had bandwidth to have done some real > kicking > >> of > >> > > the > >> > > > > tires by now. Maybe this week. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > (Yes, I'm using some of that time for this email :-) but I type > >> > fast.) > >> > > > > > >> > > > > That said, I would like to agitate for making 2.0 more real and > >> spend > >> > > > some > >> > > > > time on it now that I'm winding down with 0.98. I think that > means > >> > > > > branching for 2.0 real soon now and even evicting things from > 2.0 > >> > > branch > >> > > > > that aren't finished or stable, leaving them only once again in > >> the > >> > > > master > >> > > > > branch. Or, maybe just evicting them. Let's take it case by > case. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > I think this feature can come in relatively safely. As added > >> > insurance, > >> > > > > let's admit the possibility it could be reverted on the 2.0 > >> branch if > >> > > > folks > >> > > > > working on stabilizing 2.0 decide to evict it because it is > >> > unfinished > >> > > or > >> > > > > unstable, because that certainly can happen. I would expect if > >> talk > >> > > like > >> > > > > that starts, we'd get help finishing or stabilizing what's under > >> > > > discussion > >> > > > > for revert. Or, we'd have a revert. Either way the outcome is > >> > > acceptable. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 8:56 AM, Dima Spivak < > >> dimaspi...@apache.org> > >> > > > wrote: > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > I'm not sure that "There is already lots of half-baked code in > >> the > >> > > > > branch, > >> > > > > > so what's the harm in adding more?" is a good code commit > >> > philosophy > >> > > > for > >> > > > > a > >> > > > > > fault-tolerant distributed data store. ;) > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > More seriously, a lack of test coverage for existing features > >> > > shouldn't > >> > > > > be > >> > > > > > used as justification for introducing new features with the > same > >> > > > > > shortcomings. Ultimately, it's the end user who will feel the > >> pain, > >> > > so > >> > > > > > shouldn't we do everything we can to mitigate that? > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > -Dima > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 8:46 AM, Vladimir Rodionov < > >> > > > > vladrodio...@gmail.com> > >> > > > > > wrote: > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Sean, > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > * have docs > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Agree. We have a doc and backup is the most documented > feature > >> > :), > >> > > we > >> > > > > > will > >> > > > > > > release it shortly to Apache. > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > * have sunny-day correctness tests > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Feature has close to 60 test cases, which run for approx 30 > >> min. > >> > > We > >> > > > > can > >> > > > > > > add more, if community do not mind :) > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > * have correctness-in-face-of-failure tests > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Any examples of these tests in existing features? In works, > we > >> > > have a > >> > > > > > clear > >> > > > > > > understanding of what should be done by the time of 2.0 > >> release. > >> > > > > > > That is very close goal for us, to verify IT monkey for > >> existing > >> > > > code. > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > * don't rely on things outside of HBase for normal operation > >> > (okay > >> > > > for > >> > > > > > > advanced operation) > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > We do not. > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Enormous time has been spent already on the development and > >> > testing > >> > > > the > >> > > > > > > feature, it has passed our internal tests and many rounds of > >> code > >> > > > > reviews > >> > > > > > > by HBase committers. We do not mind if someone from HBase > >> > community > >> > > > > > > (outside of HW) will review the code, but it will probably > >> takes > >> > > > > forever > >> > > > > > to > >> > > > > > > wait for volunteer?, the feature is quite large (1MB+ > >> cumulative > >> > > > patch) > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > 2.0 branch is full of half baked features, most of them are > in > >> > > active > >> > > > > > > development, therefore I am not following you here, Sean? > Why > >> > > > > HBASE-7912 > >> > > > > > is > >> > > > > > > not good enough yet to be integrated into 2.0 branch? > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > -Vlad > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 8:23 AM, Sean Busbey < > >> bus...@apache.org> > >> > > > wrote: > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 10:36 PM, Josh Elser < > >> > > josh.el...@gmail.com> > >> > > > > > > wrote: > >> > > > > > > > > So, the answer to Sean's original question is "as robust > >> as > >> > > > > snapshots > >> > > > > > > > > presently are"? (independence of backup/restore failure > >> > > tolerance > >> > > > > > from > >> > > > > > > > > snapshot failure tolerance) > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Is this just a question WRT context of the change, or is > >> it > >> > > means > >> > > > > > for a > >> > > > > > > > veto > >> > > > > > > > > from you, Sean? Just trying to make sure I'm following > >> along > >> > > > > > > adequately. > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > I'd say ATM I'm -0, bordering on -1 but not for reasons I > >> can > >> > > > > > articulate > >> > > > > > > > well. > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Here's an attempt. > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > We've been trying to move, as a community, towards > >> minimizing > >> > > risk > >> > > > to > >> > > > > > > > downstream folks by getting "complete enough for use" > gates > >> in > >> > > > place > >> > > > > > > > before we introduce new features. This was spurred by a > some > >> > > > features > >> > > > > > > > getting in half-baked and never making it to "can really > >> use" > >> > > > status > >> > > > > > > > (I'm thinking of distributed log replay and the zk-less > >> > > assignment > >> > > > > > > > stuff, I don't recall if there was more). > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > The gates, generally, included things like: > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > * have docs > >> > > > > > > > * have sunny-day correctness tests > >> > > > > > > > * have correctness-in-face-of-failure tests > >> > > > > > > > * don't rely on things outside of HBase for normal > operation > >> > > (okay > >> > > > > for > >> > > > > > > > advanced operation) > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > As an example, we kept the MOB work off in a branch and > out > >> of > >> > > > master > >> > > > > > > > until it could pass these criteria. The big exemption > we've > >> had > >> > > to > >> > > > > > > > this was the hbase-spark integration, where we all agreed > it > >> > > could > >> > > > > > > > land in master because it was very well isolated (the > slide > >> > away > >> > > > from > >> > > > > > > > including docs as a first-class part of building up that > >> > > > integration > >> > > > > > > > has led me to doubt the wisdom of this decision). > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > We've also been treating inclusion in a "probably will be > >> > > released > >> > > > to > >> > > > > > > > downstream" branches as a higher bar, requiring > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > * don't moderately impact performance when the feature > >> isn't in > >> > > use > >> > > > > > > > * don't severely impact performance when the feature is in > >> use > >> > > > > > > > * either default-to-on or show enough demand to believe a > >> > > > non-trivial > >> > > > > > > > number of folks will turn the feature on > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > The above has kept MOB and hbase-spark integration out of > >> > > branch-1, > >> > > > > > > > presumably while they've "gotten more stable" in master > from > >> > the > >> > > > odd > >> > > > > > > > vendor inclusion. > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Are we going to have a 2.0 release before the end of the > >> year? > >> > > > We're > >> > > > > > > > coming up on 1.5 years since the release of version 1.0; > >> seems > >> > > like > >> > > > > > > > it's about time, though I haven't seen any concrete plans > >> this > >> > > > year. > >> > > > > > > > Presuming we are going to have one by the end of the year, > >> it > >> > > > seems a > >> > > > > > > > bit close to still be adding in "features that need > >> maturing" > >> > on > >> > > > the > >> > > > > > > > branch. > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > The lack of a concrete plan for 2.0 keeps me from > >> considering > >> > > these > >> > > > > > > > things blocker at the moment. But I know first hand how > much > >> > > > trouble > >> > > > > > > > folks have had with other features that have gone into > >> > downstream > >> > > > > > > > facing releases without robustness checks (i.e. > >> replication), > >> > and > >> > > > I'm > >> > > > > > > > concerned about what we're setting up if 2.0 goes out with > >> this > >> > > > > > > > feature in its current state. > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > -- > >> > > > > Best regards, > >> > > > > > >> > > > > - Andy > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - > >> Piet > >> > > Hein > >> > > > > (via Tom White) > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > -- > >> > > Best regards, > >> > > > >> > > - Andy > >> > > > >> > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet > >> Hein > >> > > (via Tom White) > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > > >
