Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
 Search Hadoop and all its subprojects:

Switch to Threaded View
HBase, mail # dev - backporting HBASE-3777 to 0.90


Copy link to this message
-
Re: backporting HBASE-3777 to 0.90
Shrijeet Paliwal 2011-09-28, 21:56
Ted,

>>Please elaborate more on your cluster setup
We have 10 RS nodes , 1 Master and 1 Zookeeper

>>usage pattern and whether your
Live writes and reads but super heavy on reads. Cache hit is pretty high.

>>Application needed to be twisted after the new build went in.
No we did not change anything in application layer.
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 2:46 PM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Shrijeet:
> >> I dont have power to vote.
> I don't think so.
> The fact that you have been using 3777 is the best vote.
>
> Please elaborate more on your cluster setup, usage pattern and whether your
> application needed to be twisted after the new build went in.
>
> Thanks
>
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Shrijeet Paliwal
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
> > I dont have power to vote. But if it helps, we are running with
> HBASE-3777
> >  on
> > top of 0.90.3 from the day it was committed. The qps on one of our data
> > centers is 50K.
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks Andy for your support.
> > > Appreciate it.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 1:39 PM, Andrew Purtell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > > I'd switch from -1 to +1 if we can get +1s from people who have
> tried
> > > > > it on clusters with several different real existing apps written by
> > > > > several different teams.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > This makes sense. My +1 was partly an agreement that I'd try it.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Best regards,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >        - Andy
> > > >
> > > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet
> > Hein
> > > > (via Tom White)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: Todd Lipcon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > Cc: Andrew Purtell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 12:40 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: backporting HBASE-3777 to 0.90
> > > > >
> > > > > I'd switch from -1 to +1 if we can get +1s from people who have
> tried
> > > > > it on clusters with several different real existing apps written by
> > > > > several different teams. EG if we can verify that the CIQ workload,
> > > > > the SU workload, and the TM workload all work with this patch with
> no
> > > > > adverse effects, seems reasonable to commit. But just passing unit
> > > > > tests doesn't seem like enough to me since it changes behavior in a
> > > > > way that is difficult to predict.
> > > > >
> > > > > -Todd
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 4:33 AM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > > > >>  One option is to publish the backported patch which passes all
> unit
> > > > tests
> > > > >>  and 'certified' by people who play trial on it.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>  The switch proposed by Todd is nice but difficult to implement.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>  Cheers
> > > > >>
> > > > >>  On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 12:29 PM, Todd Lipcon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>  On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 4:27 AM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >>>  >>> We could query user@ before considering commit.
> > > > >>>  > Let's do this.
> > > > >>>  >
> > > > >>>  > Objections ?
> > > > >>>  >
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>  I don't think most users will know whether this will break them
> > > > > until
> > > > >>>  it's "too late". Hence defaulting to current behavior,
> > > > > and letting
> > > > >>>  people switch it if the current behavior isn't working for them.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>  -Todd
> > > > >>>  --
> > > > >>>  Todd Lipcon
> > > > >>>  Software Engineer, Cloudera
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Todd Lipcon
> > > > > Software Engineer, Cloudera
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>