We have made some progress, especially on HBCK2. And we plan to cut 2.2.2 after resolving HBSE-23079, maybe this could be the stable pointer candidate.
But anyway, I think we should have a good documentation on how to make use HBCK2. Not sure if this one is up to date... https://github.com/apache/hbase-operator-tools/tree/master/hbase-hbck2 OpenInx <open...@gmail.com> 于2019年9月29日周日 下午7:36写道： > > Let's gather a few stories on it working for folks in production and move > the pointer then. > Agree, XiaoMi is making parts of the online clusters upgrade to > HBase2.2.x, I think > Guanghao will share the practices some time later. > Thanks. > > On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 12:09 AM Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote: > > > On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 4:58 PM Andrew Purtell <andrew.purt...@gmail.com > > > > wrote: > > > > > For what it’s worth I had previously been concerned about the disparity > > > between hbck capability in 1.x and 2.x but after review of the recent > > work > > > I believe that is no longer true. Put another way, it is reasonable to > > > claim it on par. > > > > > > > > Thanks Andrew for chiming in. > > > > > > > > > As for moving the stable pointer I don’t personally have enough > > experience > > > with HBase 2 to weigh in but will trust the opinions of those that do. > > > > > > > > > > > Let's gather a few stories on it working for folks in production and move > > the pointer then. > > > > Thanks, > > S > > > > > > > > > > On Sep 14, 2019, at 8:44 AM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > HBASE-21745 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21745>, the > > > issue > > > > addressing gaps between hbck1 and hbck2 was closed a few days back > > after > > > a > > > > bunch of work by a kaleidoscope of folks. The release notes section > > tries > > > > to describe what was added by HBASE-21745. Shout if you think the > claim > > > at > > > > the end of the release notes section that hbck2 now is on par or > beyond > > > > what hbck1 offered is problematic. Otherwise, will proceed as though > it > > > is > > > > the case. > > > > > > > > Suggestion: Given that hbase 2.2.1 will ship soon and > > > hbase-operator-tools > > > > 1.0.0 with latest hbase-hbck2 should get an RC inside the next week > or > > > so, > > > > if feedback that 2.2.1 looks good, give 2.2.2 (with bug fixes only) > the > > > > stable pointer? > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > S > > > > > > > >> On Sat, Jan 26, 2019 at 11:31 AM Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> As per Sean, bypass with optional 'force' (override) and recurse for > > > case > > > >> where a procedure had spawned children was the mechanism Allan > > > implemented > > > >> after a chat about merits of procedure delete. I found it of use > doing > > > >> fixup to clusters I'd intentionally damaged testing candidates. > > > Procedures > > > >> are usually part of a fabric with relations that an operator might > > have > > > >> trouble unraveling. It was thought that the bypass would be safer > > than a > > > >> delete, likely to cause more damage than solution. > > > >> > > > >> Interested in the issues you are seeing on Master branch Sergey. > > > >> > > > >> Thanks, > > > >> S > > > >> > > > >>> On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 1:54 PM Sean Busbey <bus...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>> that's already present, see the README for the "bypass" command: > > > >>> > > > >>> > > https://github.com/apache/hbase-operator-tools/tree/master/hbase-hbck2 > > > >>> > > > >>> On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 3:40 PM Sergey Shelukhin > > > >>> <sergey.sheluk...@microsoft.com.invalid> wrote: > > > >>>> > > > >>>> I think one thing that is needed for HBCK2 for AMv2 is to be able > to > > > >>> delete single procedures from store. > > > >>>> We are evaluating master (whose assignment is very similar to > > > branch-2) > > > >>> right now and I have to delete proc WAL pretty much every day > because > > > some > > > >>> procedure(s) are in bad state, but deleting the entire WAL also > > causes > > > >>> other issues. > > > >>>> It should be possible to remove some offending procedure while > > master > > > >>> is offline and/or online. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> -----Original Message----- > > > >>>> From: 张铎(Duo Zhang) <palomino...@gmail.com> > > > >>>> Sent: Friday, January 18, 2019 5:52 PM > > > >>>> To: HBase Dev List <dev@hbase.apache.org> > > > >>>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Moving towards a branch-2 line that can get > > the > > > >>> 'stable' pointer. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> OK, the original issue is HBCK2 for AMv2, but here we need to do > > more, > > > >>> not only for AMv2. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Let me open a new issue and post what Andrew said above there. > > > >>>> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >
