[
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)
