We have patch now (which also disables Nagle's algorithm): HBASE-7008
The question is now: Should we only do this for 0.96 or also for the upcoming 0.94 point release (0.94.3).
(See also discussion on the issue)
-- Lars

________________________________
 From: lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: hbase-dev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 8:25 PM
Subject: Set scanner caching to a better default?
 
We just ran into this again today, where we forgot to set scanner caching and observed bad performance.
The default of 1 does not seem to make any sense (except for very specific case of large/wide rows).

Any value between 10 and 1000 should be OK, really. Maybe the default should be 100.

This would also go some way to avoid the perception that HBase is slow for folks who are just playing around with it.
Thoughts?
-- Lars

On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 5:46 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We have patch now (which also disables Nagle's algorithm): HBASE-7008
> The question is now: Should we only do this for 0.96 or also for the upcoming 0.94 point release (0.94.3).
> (See also discussion on the issue)
>

Only for 0.96 IMO.  Changing defaults under folks in low-level ways
could surprise; a point release shouldn't.
St.Ack

I agree. Let me make it so.
________________________________
 From: Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2012 6:56 PM
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Set scanner caching to a better default? HBASE-7008
 
On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 5:46 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We have patch now (which also disables Nagle's algorithm): HBASE-7008
> The question is now: Should we only do this for 0.96 or also for the upcoming 0.94 point release (0.94.3).
> (See also discussion on the issue)
>

Only for 0.96 IMO.  Changing defaults under folks in low-level ways
could surprise; a point release shouldn't.
St.Ack

On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 5:46 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Any value between 10 and 1000 should be OK, really. Maybe the default should be 100.

FWIW, asynchbase uses 128 rows as the default for its scanners, and
4096 maximum KVs by default too.

--
Benoit "tsuna" Sigoure