Mailing-List: contact dev-help@hbase.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@hbase.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of yuzhihong@gmail.com designates
 209.85.216.169 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type;
        b=BSkB8TXEmIjGPkQLRJko4IvdIZKruhO5bH09kJhtWXZcbFC3JjmtYsiSjuNdJuWxrl
         dnpevTkK8vfRG8CiaF/wgPf0rcyfSUuSH0KGZeQECUMIh5Im6VdbEiywLYCYHRJ5rrHf
         VhbSZBSYXv9R2a/AgEb0y0q6z7qry1DQdePgo=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikpV64fjEPMKo18Aj-copztqebMaXtGafv_rqaA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTi=dugXgQwmU2goq4g9V4WaidoqC2GZ5pLuEN1VP@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTi=3G8F9+B9x7gF+TUL78A-bXojGNayDdHHTF4VV@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTi=BpmgT5QUrv77j87t=mD+bUEtsMJhAuvSbtF8A@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTikpV64fjEPMKo18Aj-copztqebMaXtGafv_rqaA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 19:05:07 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=wRHk1srAfjC8M2zvf50zUM_+=JbLTgxU7vQyy@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: HBaseAdmin.flush()
From: Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com>
To: dev@hbase.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001636283ed678959704929e41e1

--001636283ed678959704929e41e1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

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
> >> >
> >>
> >
>

--001636283ed678959704929e41e1--