accumulo-notifications mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Brian Loss (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (ACCUMULO-3480) GroupBalancer improvements
Date Wed, 21 Jan 2015 19:48:35 GMT


Brian Loss commented on ACCUMULO-3480:

The patch looks pretty good to me. I have been testing with it and haven't found any errors
yet. However, when testing with a large number of servers, tablets, and groups in a test case,
I'm finding that this hunk is causing a performance bottleneck:
-        surplusExtra.columnKeySet().removeAll(serversToRemove);
+        if (serversToRemove.size() > 0) {
+          surplusExtra.columnKeySet().removeAll(serversToRemove);
+        }
Well, really it's the columnKeySet() and removeAll(serversToRemove) calls that are the bottleneck
rather than your specific change.

> GroupBalancer improvements
> --------------------------
>                 Key: ACCUMULO-3480
>                 URL:
>             Project: Accumulo
>          Issue Type: Bug
>            Reporter: Keith Turner
>            Assignee: Keith Turner
>             Fix For: 1.7.0
>         Attachments: ACCUMULO-3480-1.patch
> [~bfloss] made the following comment on ACCUMULO-3439
> bq. The balance method in GroupBalancer does nothing if there are any incoming migrations.
You probably want to check the incoming migrations and only bail out if any of those migrations
are for the specific table that the GroupBalancer is managing.
> I chatted w/ Brian and he also mentioned that the group balancer should record time at
the end, and not the beginning.  

This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA

View raw message