>> I have spent a good bit of time reviewing and testing this feature. I would >> like my review and concerns addressed and I'd like it to be clear how; >> either explicit follow-on issues, pointers to where in the patch or doc my >> remarks have been catered to, etc. Until then, I am against commit.
Stack, mega patch review comments will be addressed in the dedicated JIRA: HBASE-16940 I have open several other JIRAs to address your other comments (not on review board). Details are here (end of the thread): https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-14123 Let me know what else should we do to move merge forward. -Vlad On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 4:54 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 3:53 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Thanks, Matteo. > > > > bq. restore is not clear if given an incremental id it will do the full > > restore from full up to that point or if i need to apply manually > > everything > > > > The restore takes into consideration of the dependent backup(s). > > So there is no need to apply preceding backup(s) manually. > > > > > I ask this question on the issue. It is not clear from the usage or doc how > to run a restore from incremental. Can you fix in doc and usage how so I > can be clear and try it. Currently I am stuck verifying a round trip backup > restore made of incrementals. > > Thanks, > S > > > > > On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 3:48 PM, Matteo Bertozzi < > theo.berto...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > I did one last pass to the mega patch. I don't see anything major that > > > should block the merge. > > > > > > - most of the code is isolated in the backup package > > > - all the backup code is client side > > > - there are few changes to the server side, mainly for cleaners, wal > > > rolling and similar (which is ok) > > > - there is a good number of tests, and an integration test > > > > > > the code seems to have still some left overs from the old > implementation, > > > and some stuff needs a cleanup. but I don't think this should be used > as > > an > > > argument to block the merge. I think the guys will keep working on this > > and > > > they may also get help of others once the patch is in master. > > > > > > I still have my concerns about the current limitations, but these are > > > things already planned for phase 3, so some of this stuff may even be > in > > > the final 2.0. > > > but as long as we have a "current limitations" section in the user > guide > > > mentioning important stuff like the ones below, I'm ok with it. > > > - 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) > > > > > > I'll be ok even with the above not being in the final 2.0, > > > but i'd like to see as blocker for the final 2.0 (not the merge) > > > - the backup code moved in an hbase-backup module > > > - and some more work around tools, especially to try to unify and make > > > simple the backup experience (simple example: in some case there is a > > > backup_id argument in others a backupId argument. or things like.. > > restore > > > is not clear if given an incremental id it will do the full restore > from > > > full up to that point or if i need to apply manually everything). > > > > > > in conclusion, I think we can open a merge vote. I'll be +1 on it, and > I > > > think we should try to reject -1 with just a "code cleanup" motivation, > > > since there will still be work going on on the code after the merge. > > > > > > Matteo > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 10:54 PM, Devaraj Das <d...@hortonworks.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > Stack and others, anything else on the patch? Merge to master now? > > > > > > > > > >
