[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-17852?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16273414#comment-16273414
]
Vladimir Rodionov commented on HBASE-17852:
-------------------------------------------
{quote}
I'm not sure what this is intended to prove. Sometimes I get patches right on
the first try, sometimes it takes twenty tries.
{quote}
Nothing, actually except that when contributor submit a patch he expects
comments/questions related to the code of a patch not a generic questions: Why
have you chosen this design approach, especially when this approach has been
discussed many times with other developers before. It is very hard and time
consuming to explain everything from a very beginning for a person who wants
to participate in a review, but is not familiar with the code. I have two
committers on the feature [~te...@apache.org] and [~elserj] who have spent a
lot of time working on the code. I trust them and although I appreciate help
from other developers, I expect them to spend some time digging into the full
feature code, before trying to review a particular patch (one of more than 100
already). This requires some commitment.
Any question on the patch itself?
> 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
>
> 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, HBASE-17852-v7.patch, HBASE-17852-v8.patch,
> HBASE-17852-v9.patch
>
>
> Design approach rollback-via-snapshot implemented in this ticket:
> # Before backup create/delete/merge starts we take a snapshot of the backup
> meta-table (backup system table). This procedure is lightweight because meta
> table is small, usually should fit a single region.
> # When operation fails on a server side, we handle this failure by cleaning
> up partial data in backup destination, followed by restoring backup
> meta-table from a snapshot.
> # When operation fails on a client side (abnormal termination, for example),
> next time user will try create/merge/delete he(she) will see error message,
> that system is in inconsistent state and repair is required, he(she) will
> need to run backup repair tool.
> # To avoid multiple writers to the backup system table (backup client and
> BackupObserver's) we introduce small table ONLY to keep listing of bulk
> loaded files. All backup observers will work only with this new tables. The
> reason: in case of a failure during backup create/delete/merge/restore, when
> system performs automatic rollback, some data written by backup observers
> during failed operation may be lost. This is what we try to avoid.
> # Second table keeps only bulk load related references. We do not care about
> consistency of this table, because bulk load is idempotent operation and can
> be repeated after failure. Partially written data in second table does not
> affect on BackupHFileCleaner plugin, because this data (list of bulk loaded
> files) correspond to a files which have not been loaded yet successfully and,
> hence - are not visible to the system
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.4.14#64029)
