accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From ke...@deenlo.com
Subject Re: Review Request 24855: ACCUMULO-1454 design doc
Date Thu, 21 Aug 2014 18:42:24 GMT


> On Aug. 21, 2014, 4:58 p.m., Josh Elser wrote:
> > docs/src/main/asciidoc/design/ACCUMULO-1454-proposal-01.adoc, line 24
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/24855/diff/2/?file=665310#file665310line24>
> >
> >     The re-assignment of the tablets from the node that was restarted should get
reassigned back to that node because of the last location in for the tablet, right?

Yeah.  Also I am thinking that even if the tablet does not have the proper last location set,
that it may still go to the tserver because the tserver has fewer tablets.   Need to test
this.  I am going to add a test section to the document based on some of your comments.


> On Aug. 21, 2014, 4:58 p.m., Josh Elser wrote:
> > docs/src/main/asciidoc/design/ACCUMULO-1454-proposal-01.adoc, line 35
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/24855/diff/2/?file=665310#file665310line35>
> >
> >     stop-here.sh and start-here.sh already can't be used when running more than
one tserver per host (e.g. Slider -- accumulo on yarn) because those scripts assume that there
is only one process per node.
> >     
> >     This is a bigger problem in regards to the assumptions that the scripts make.
I've come to the conclusion already that we need to rethink the scripts to support this.
> >     
> >     I think what you've outlined for rolling restarts still makes sense with multiple
tservers per host (assuming the last loc is host:port and not just host)

ugh.  Sounds like that situation will be harder to test.   Like you said, I would like the
design to support multiple tservers per a node even if the scripts do not.


> On Aug. 21, 2014, 4:58 p.m., Josh Elser wrote:
> > docs/src/main/asciidoc/design/ACCUMULO-1454-proposal-01.adoc, line 44
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/24855/diff/2/?file=665310#file665310line44>
> >
> >     Important to note that some properties (instance.* specifically) cannot be changed
and restarted sequentially as the SystemCredential will have changed.

that will need to be called in out documentation.   I can add a section about that to the
document.


> On Aug. 21, 2014, 4:58 p.m., Josh Elser wrote:
> > docs/src/main/asciidoc/design/ACCUMULO-1454-proposal-01.adoc, line 61
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/24855/diff/2/?file=665310#file665310line61>
> >
> >     Preemption is a big consideration here in regards to major compactions and scans.
> >     
> >     MajC's over very large tablets, with iterators applied, could take a significant
amount of time.
> >     
> >     Scans which are performing large filtering (IntersectingIterator-like operations)
could induce a bit of extra latency to the user. They shouldn't see it fail (as long as no
external system kills the scan), but it will take a while.
> >     
> >     I think with majc we just want to cancel them. Do we wait for scans to finish
before unloading? I can think of considerations for both waiting on them or cancelling them.

Tablet close will attempt to cancel any running compactions.   I can not remember w/ scans.
 Will need to test these situations.


> On Aug. 21, 2014, 4:58 p.m., Josh Elser wrote:
> > docs/src/main/asciidoc/design/ACCUMULO-1454-proposal-01.adoc, line 111
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/24855/diff/2/?file=665310#file665310line111>
> >
> >     Would decomission(String) do more/less than what `accumulo admin stop tserver`
currently does?

Yeah


- kturner


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/24855/#review51183
-----------------------------------------------------------


On Aug. 20, 2014, 5:40 p.m., kturner wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/24855/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Aug. 20, 2014, 5:40 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for accumulo.
> 
> 
> Bugs: ACCUMULO-1454
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-1454
> 
> 
> Repository: accumulo
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Positing ACCUMULO-1454 design doc for review
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   docs/src/main/asciidoc/design/ACCUMULO-1454-proposal-01.adoc PRE-CREATION 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/24855/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> kturner
> 
>


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