Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-hbase-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 84688 invoked from network); 15 Mar 2011 16:52:46 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 15 Mar 2011 16:52:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 72380 invoked by uid 500); 15 Mar 2011 16:52:45 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-hbase-dev-archive@hbase.apache.org Received: (qmail 72347 invoked by uid 500); 15 Mar 2011 16:52:45 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@hbase.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@hbase.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@hbase.apache.org Received: (qmail 72339 invoked by uid 99); 15 Mar 2011 16:52:45 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 15 Mar 2011 16:52:45 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=5.0 tests=FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of yuzhihong@gmail.com designates 209.85.161.41 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.161.41] (HELO mail-fx0-f41.google.com) (209.85.161.41) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 15 Mar 2011 16:52:40 +0000 Received: by fxm18 with SMTP id 18so978183fxm.14 for ; Tue, 15 Mar 2011 09:52:19 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=mip8hKpGBx/qBB3VsHuMAGUta5LUNbEhp3gBKsttF4o=; b=vDVXXIPNA33WsFf8zTQbkEzNGgAttSstrHogPk1GCe6CTd6FuiuyHX6Zyywogw1KHL HmALHnbJB862gGBuQTtzYGYGpYXQ2fmfq7d08bWozBuEHUERuRg0I02fiYAqV4k9jKVh 1QhHzAT5UhYgi2jTeZcpznnr1hCljf0S8Fs5c= 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=Y1rXDOPqMlnzI4sfF7enNokW1lBpegXAfPaZdI2paUlt6BDmqCSMv54ZfWg9G3wQWI RZHwdU1BHQts+qk6h85w7v7ZlWRzx/yf2j4vbNQpHItjaULdUZYehpzupaT5tIv+rLfu k11eDTei0/ZH9ktQynm0YAbmZVMBCvlhQPvow= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.223.155.135 with SMTP id s7mr514439faw.10.1300207912853; Tue, 15 Mar 2011 09:51:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.223.86.10 with HTTP; Tue, 15 Mar 2011 09:51:52 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 09:51:52 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: distinguish read and write request count in region From: Ted Yu To: dev@hbase.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=002354189220c7a087049e883e6c --002354189220c7a087049e883e6c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 How should we deal with early return by coprocessor ? if (coprocessorHost.preGetClosestRowBefore(row, family, result)) { return result; } I would assume that the above wouldn't increase read request count. On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 9:07 AM, Stack wrote: > That would be useful and now we have cheap(er) counters, it should not > be too burdensome keeping up the extra count. > St.Ack > > On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 7:04 AM, Ted Yu wrote: > > I am thinking of distinguishing read and write request count, on top of > > HBASE-3507. > > For load balancer, the action for balancing read vs. write load should be > > different. For read load, region movement should be low (to keep scanner > > happy). For write load, region movement is allowed. > > > > Please comment. > > > --002354189220c7a087049e883e6c--