Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
NEW: Monitor These Apps!
elasticsearch, apache solr, apache hbase, hadoop, redis, casssandra, amazon cloudwatch, mysql, memcached, apache kafka, apache zookeeper, apache storm, ubuntu, centOS, red hat, debian, puppet labs, java, senseiDB
 Search Hadoop and all its subprojects:

Switch to Plain View
HBase >> mail # dev >> Heads up, HTablePool will be deprecated in 0.94, 0.95/0.96, and removed in 0.98


+
lars hofhansl 2013-08-03, 04:29
+
Ted Yu 2013-08-03, 05:31
+
lars hofhansl 2013-08-03, 05:54
+
Ted Yu 2013-08-03, 14:20
+
Ted Yu 2013-08-04, 03:52
+
Nick Dimiduk 2013-08-04, 03:56
+
lars hofhansl 2013-08-04, 05:41
+
Ted Yu 2013-08-04, 23:27
+
lars hofhansl 2013-08-05, 02:23
+
Ted Yu 2013-08-05, 02:39
Copy link to this message
-
Re: Heads up, HTablePool will be deprecated in 0.94, 0.95/0.96, and removed in 0.98
Let's do a little quiz:

HTable t1 = new HTable(conf);
t1.close();

// 1. Will the next line create a new HConnection behind the scenes (along with re-creating all the caches)?
// (If so, it will be expensive, if not, when is the first HConnection actually released?)
HTable t2 = new HTable(conf);

// 2. how about this one?
HTable t2 = new HTable(new Configuration(conf));

// 3. or now?
conf.setInt(HConstants.HBASE_CLIENT_PAUSE, 2000);
HTable t3 = new HTable(conf);

// 4. and now?
conf.setInt(HBASE_CLIENT_SCANNER_MAX_RESULT_SIZE_KEY, 1024000);
HTable t4 = new HTable(conf);

// 5. how many connections are opened now?
t4.close();

This stuff is convoluted and needlessly complicated. And this is not because the code is bad, but because the abstraction is simply inadequate.
A client wants to connect to a cluster and then do some action on that cluster (via HTable as a convenience).
If the cluster connection is implicit it leads to all of the above considerations.

(#1: Yes, #2: no, #3: yes, #4: no, #5: I don't really know, id'd have run it to see)

-- Lars

________________________________
 From: Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, August 4, 2013 7:39 PM
Subject: Re: Heads up, HTablePool will be deprecated in 0.94, 0.95/0.96, and removed in 0.98
 
In the Connections "managing" HTables case, don't we need to figure out when an HConnection should be released ?
On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 7:23 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Just look at HConnectionKey part, and hoops we go through to detect whether HConnections are the same or not, when to cache them, when/how to release them.
>In fact almost all HConnectionManager does is managing HConnections on behalf of HTable, when it should be other way around.
>
>Typically, when things get hard to explain (check out the comments in HConnectionManager) there is either an abstraction missing, or the abstraction is not right.
>The reverse (Connections "managing" HTables) has none of this.
>
>
>-- Lars
>
>
>_______________________________
>From: Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Sunday, August 4, 2013 4:27 PM
>
>Subject: Re: Heads up, HTablePool will be deprecated in 0.94, 0.95/0.96, and removed in 0.98
>
>
>
>bq. no funny business with unique Configurations
>
>Mind telling us what is funny about this part ?
>
>
>On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 10:41 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Correct. The HConnection is naturally shared between the HTables.
>>There is no longer any need to worry about this (no funny business with unique Configurations, in fact most of the code in HConnectionManager can be removed in trunk).
>>
>>It is also correct that the code now has to hold on the created HConnection, rather asking HConnectionManager for it.
>>
>>-- Lars
>>
>>
>>
>>________________________________
>> From: Nick Dimiduk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Sent: Saturday, August 3, 2013 8:56 PM
>>
>>Subject: Re: Heads up, HTablePool will be deprecated in 0.94, 0.95/0.96, and removed in 0.98
>>
>>
>>On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 8:52 PM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> Does this mean that user code wouldn't be able to depend
>>> on HConnectionManager for connection sharing ?
>>>
>>
>>My read of the above is that the HConnection instance is shared across
>>consumers, is the shared connection. Am I reading that correctly?
>>
>>On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 7:20 AM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Ah, I find the JIRA - HBASE-9117.
>>> >
>>> > Cheers
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 10:54 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Yeah, I filed a separate ticket for the API removal in trunk.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> ________________________________
>>> >>  From: Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> >> Sent: Friday, August 2, 2013 10:31 PM
+
Stack 2013-08-05, 15:25
+
Andrew Purtell 2013-08-05, 17:31
+
Gary Helmling 2013-08-05, 17:45
+
Suraj Varma 2013-08-05, 20:21
+
Enis Söztutar 2013-08-05, 21:30
+
Ted Yu 2013-08-05, 22:17
+
Andrew Purtell 2013-08-06, 00:27
+
lars hofhansl 2013-08-06, 00:51
+
Ted Yu 2013-08-05, 03:08
+
lars hofhansl 2013-08-05, 03:32
+
Jesse Yates 2013-08-03, 06:50
+
Nick Dimiduk 2013-08-04, 03:20
NEW: Monitor These Apps!
elasticsearch, apache solr, apache hbase, hadoop, redis, casssandra, amazon cloudwatch, mysql, memcached, apache kafka, apache zookeeper, apache storm, ubuntu, centOS, red hat, debian, puppet labs, java, senseiDB