Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-accumulo-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-accumulo-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 42D151160C for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 19:01:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 29338 invoked by uid 500); 28 Mar 2014 19:01:19 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-accumulo-dev-archive@accumulo.apache.org Received: (qmail 28838 invoked by uid 500); 28 Mar 2014 19:01:18 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@accumulo.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@accumulo.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@accumulo.apache.org Received: (qmail 28795 invoked by uid 99); 28 Mar 2014 19:01:17 -0000 Received: from reviews-vm.apache.org (HELO reviews.apache.org) (140.211.11.40) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 19:01:17 +0000 Received: from reviews.apache.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by reviews.apache.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D60E71D5B92; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 19:01:12 +0000 (UTC) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="===============5433222123250800566==" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Review Request 19790: ACCUMULO-378 Design document From: keith@deenlo.com To: "Mike Drob" , "accumulo" , keith@deenlo.com Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 19:01:12 -0000 Message-ID: <20140328190112.4904.52191@reviews.apache.org> X-ReviewBoard-URL: https://reviews.apache.org Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Sender: noreply@reviews.apache.org X-ReviewGroup: accumulo X-ReviewRequest-URL: https://reviews.apache.org/r/19790/ X-Sender: noreply@reviews.apache.org References: <20140328180646.29944.57131@reviews.apache.org> In-Reply-To: <20140328180646.29944.57131@reviews.apache.org> Reply-To: keith@deenlo.com X-ReviewRequest-Repository: accumulo --===============5433222123250800566== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > On March 28, 2014, 6:06 p.m., Mike Drob wrote: > > I did not see any considerations for dealing with limited WAN capacity. If data ingest is local to the master, then it is feasible that the ingest bandwidth is much higher than can be efficiently acheived between e.g. Oregon and Virginia. We would also probably need some sequence function so that while clients reading from the slave might see stale information, they are not at risk of seeing Key combinations that have never existed. Are you concerned about data being written in a different order on the slave? Or mutations being broken up? Or something else? - kturner ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/19790/#review38922 ----------------------------------------------------------- On March 28, 2014, 5:54 p.m., kturner wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/19790/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated March 28, 2014, 5:54 p.m.) > > > Review request for accumulo. > > > Bugs: ACCUMULO-378 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-378 > > > Repository: accumulo > > > Description > ------- > > ACCUMULO-378 Design document. Posting for review here, not meant for commit. Final version of document should be posted on issue. > > > Diffs > ----- > > docs/src/main/resources/design/ACCUMULO-378-design.mdtext PRE-CREATION > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/19790/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > > Thanks, > > kturner > > --===============5433222123250800566==--