[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-17852?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16257737#comment-16257737 ]
Vladimir Rodionov commented on HBASE-17852: ------------------------------------------- {quote} So, the idea to offline a system table and then restore from a snapshot on error with clients 'advised' to stop writing as some-sort of 2PC got buy-in from others? This is 'fault-tolerance'? Is there a write-up somewhere that explains why we have to offline and then restore a whole table (whatever its size) just because a particular op failed and how it is more simple and elegant than other soluntions (what others?), I'd like to read it. Otherwise, I just don't get it (neither will the operator whose cron job failed because backup table was gone when it ran). {quote} Stack, you just out of context right now, but I appreciate you want to spend so much time digging into my code once again. Thanks. Your are the only one who is objecting snapshot-based approach, but I am still waiting for a single argument why is this bad? > Add Fault tolerance to HBASE-14417 (Support bulk loaded files in incremental > backup) > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Key: HBASE-17852 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-17852 > Project: HBase > Issue Type: Sub-task > Reporter: Vladimir Rodionov > Assignee: Vladimir Rodionov > Fix For: 2.0.0-beta-1 > > Attachments: HBASE-17852-v1.patch, HBASE-17852-v2.patch, > HBASE-17852-v3.patch, HBASE-17852-v4.patch, HBASE-17852-v5.patch, > HBASE-17852-v6.patch > > -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.4.14#64029)