[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-17852?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16257561#comment-16257561
]
stack commented on HBASE-17852:
-------------------------------
bq. That is why we take snapshot of a backup system table and restore this
table from snapshot, previously taken, in case of a command
(create/delete/merge) failure.
Was this written up somewhere previously and the design shopped before others
with buy-in?
The snapshot/restore of a whole system table strikes me as a bunch of moving
parts. I have to ask why we got such an extreme? 2PC is tough-enough w/o
offlining/restore of whole meta table. During restore, all clients are frozen
out or something so they can't pollute the restored version? Restore is not
atomic, right? We couldn't have something like a row-per-backup with a success
tag if all went well (I've not been following closely -- pardon all the
questions).
> 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
>
>
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.4.14#64029)
