Todd, Change from 'remote bootstrap' to something like 'tablet copy' sounds reasonable. As I see from the description, the 'tablet copy' better reflects the essence of the process. Both 'tablet copy' and 'tablet snapshot transfer' are better than 'remote bootstrap', IMO. Not sure whether the additional 'remote' brings more clarity: is it possible to have a 'local tablet copy' at all?
BTW, if 'replica' or 'replication' terms aren't too overloaded and applicable in this context, consider a couple of additional options: - Tablet replication - Creating tablet replica Best regards, Alexey On Sun, Jul 31, 2016 at 3:45 PM, Todd Lipcon <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, > > Currently we use the term "remote bootstrap" to mean the process by which > one tablet server copies a tablet from another. This terminology started > long long ago, back when we thought there was some chance that it would > actually _start_ the tablet from remote storage, which isn't at all what > the current design does. > > I think it would be more accurate and cause less confusion if we considered > changing our terminology here. The current terminology invites confusion > with "tablet bootstrap", the process by which a tablet opens its data, > replays its logs, and starts. A couple suggestions would be: > > - Tablet copy (since we're copying a tablet from one host to another) > - Tablet snapshot transfer (a mouthful,but fairly accurate) > - Remote tablet copy (slightly more precise than "tablet copy" but also > longer) > > What do people think? Changing this before we hit 1.0 would be nice just so > we have time to update docs, metric names, etc, even though it doesn't > affect any public APIs. > > -Todd > -- > Todd Lipcon > Software Engineer, Cloudera >
