hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ryan Rawson <ryano...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: HBaseAdmin.flush()
Date Fri, 15 Oct 2010 02:40:16 GMT
That's cool, just be aware that over the next few months the answer to
the question "there is this bug in 0.20.6" is "upgrade to 0.90".

Good luck!
-ryan


On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 7:31 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am considering migrating to 0.90 - maybe early next year.
>
> Cheers
>
> On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 7:23 PM, Ryan Rawson <ryanobjc@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The answer is HDFS-200 and changes to HLog.
>>
>> You should start considering what your 0.90 upgrade plan will be, it
>> is imperative that within 3 months no one is running 0.20.6 or
>> earlier.  Getting the features of 0.90 on 0.20.x is not the right
>> direction and would take as much effort as creating 0.90 essentially.
>>
>> To help the adoption we are using 0.89 at Stumbleupon in production
>> and will be one of the first users of 0.90 as it comes out.
>>
>> -ryan
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 7:05 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > J-D:
>> > If you can briefly point out the code in 0.89 which makes using WAL more
>> > reliable, that would be great.
>> >
>> > Thanks
>> >
>> > On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 5:51 PM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <jdcryans@apache.org
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >> Even if HBaseAdmin.flush is made synchronous, that won't get you far
>> >> since it's still processed sequentially on the region servers. A
>> >> better well-known option is to set hbase.regionserver.hlog.blocksize
>> >> to a small number, and if you want high durability you could set that
>> >> to 1KB (basically rolling at every new insert). Since this is
>> >> incredibly inefficient, a more wide-spread number (and one we used
>> >> while we were on 0.20) is 2MB. Set it higher if you have a high insert
>> >> rate, or lower if you don't insert very often.
>> >>
>> >> J-D
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 8:36 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > We're still using 0.20.6 :-)
>> >> >
>> >> > On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 5:19 PM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <
>> jdcryans@apache.org
>> >> >wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> If your Puts are using the WAL, and you are on 0.89, it's already
as
>> >> >> durable as it can be without forcing flushes.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> J-D
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 8:07 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com>
wrote:
>> >> >> > Hi,
>> >> >> > HBaseAdmin.flush() is asynchronous.
>> >> >> > In order to achieve high durability, do I have a better choice
?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Thanks
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>>
>

Mime
View raw message