I think when I originally designed it I over-engineered it a bit. Just
picking a random one should be enough and make the code simpler.
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 8:37 AM, Gabriel Reid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was wondering if someone (perhaps Jean-Daniel, but anyone is welcome) could explain the reasoning for the current peer sink selection logic within replication.
> As it currently stands, a percentage (by default 10%) of the slave cluster's region servers are randomly chosen by each region server in the master cluster as their replication pool. Each time a batch of edits is shipped to a peer, one region server is chosen from the pre-selected pool of slave region servers.
> I was wondering what the advantage(s) of this approach are compared to each master region server simply randomly choosing a slave peer from the full set of slave region servers. In my (probably naive) view, this approach would provide a more even distribution of usage over the whole slave cluster, and I can't see any real advantages that the current approach has (although I assume there must be some).
> Could someone let me know what the reasoning is behind the current approach?