accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From John Vines <vi...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Backwards compatibility of traces
Date Mon, 07 Apr 2014 15:13:28 GMT
 3457+0      shell@john-P15xEMx shell:root
    9+1603     shell@john-P15xEMx close
    9+1603
shell@john-P15xEMxorg.apache.accumulo.core.client.impl.TabletServerBatchWriter$MutationWriter
1
    8+1604
shell@john-P15xEMxorg.apache.accumulo.core.client.impl.TabletServerBatchWriter$MutationWriter
1
    8+1604         shell@john-P15xEMx sendMutations
    7+1605           tserver@localhost update
    7+1605             tserver@localhost wal
    4+1607               tserver@localhost update
    4+1607                 tserver@localhost wal
    1+1608                   tserver@localhost client:update
    1+1609                   tserver@localhost update
    1+1609                     tserver@localhost wal



On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 11:05 AM, Mike Drob <madrob@cloudera.com> wrote:

> Can you give an example of where this happens?
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 10:54 AM, John Vines <vines@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Given our support of backwards compatibility, does anyone have a
> preference
> > for how traces are stored?
> >
> > I ask because I have noticed some places where our internal trace hooks
> are
> > named with collisions so that you get multiple events with the same
> > identifier which are actually different events. I would like to change
> > them, ideally for 1.5.2 and 1.6.1(0?) simply because it's hampering the
> > ability to do performance testing and tuning.
> >
> > But I'm not sure if A. we're okay making these changes from a
> compatibility
> > perspective and B. we're okay making these changes as part of a minor
> > release.
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message