Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-hbase-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-hbase-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 973156D72 for ; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 04:02:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 94889 invoked by uid 500); 20 Jun 2011 04:02:38 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-hbase-dev-archive@hbase.apache.org Received: (qmail 93958 invoked by uid 500); 20 Jun 2011 04:02:32 -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 93949 invoked by uid 99); 20 Jun 2011 04:02:30 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 04:02:30 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=5.0 tests=FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RFC_ABUSE_POST,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 74.125.83.169 as permitted sender) Received: from [74.125.83.169] (HELO mail-pv0-f169.google.com) (74.125.83.169) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 04:02:25 +0000 Received: by pvc12 with SMTP id 12so670321pvc.14 for ; Sun, 19 Jun 2011 21:02:04 -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=93Ncbo/NK+qxIpJlUwSc/pVCR7ggi07YdnvP/VRynik=; b=Ij1MlZilkiOZwsMyJXmn9MpJBtzjaSQIhGUP6Blk2N6D7hM6VNTho2H2zbim0f6tGX 32C3ZEu7WZ8EaM6Q9SXAgD93dViMPWdH+kALsUsUAsK9PfChsaBzlVBJAgu6UNROO6Lw PIBr+Ko2pPwU+p6eJlFsGqT02fc+6f+e1KKo0= 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=U7cV1jPAK4k/lVDFTZ6qKgJmUFpTyZWFJ4v3A/7PHtS7hvehi3hwx8eFEJ9/pjYSpi Ar4gF42bdw80fLP2M+C3oLJ1Xly+sfI8Z3jONecycCpd+39caPgBAuo1pEpQ+KCQBcU6 t3/SVAOnNCySHY09wVFDW4nHWYkB5T++yGfH4= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.68.32.129 with SMTP id j1mr1859713pbi.484.1308542524616; Sun, 19 Jun 2011 21:02:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.68.47.202 with HTTP; Sun, 19 Jun 2011 21:02:04 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2011 21:02:04 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: HBASE 3904 From: Ted Yu To: dev@hbase.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec520f3a35a718804a61ccc0a --bcaec520f3a35a718804a61ccc0a Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I put patch v5 on 3904. When user calls HBaseAdmin.createTableAsync() to create the table, HCM.isTableAvailable() is still vulnerable because currently it doesn't known the desired number of regions. We can add a new parameter to HCM.isTableAvailable() but 1. HConnection needs to be modified to accommodate this change 2. I personally think it is not intuitive. Comments are welcome. On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 8:48 AM, Stack wrote: > On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 5:43 PM, Ted Yu wrote: > > HBA.createTable() takes too long to execute. Client receives Socket > timeout > > exception. > > This is because the create is running in the master? Can we have > waiting happen client-side over in HBaseAdmin? > > > Client calls HCM.isTableAvailable() which would report inaccurate status. > > I want to get other developers' opinion on whether HCM.isTableAvailable() > > should be accurate. > > > > Do we need two forms? An isTableAvailable that will looks at table > and if all regions are online reports true and then another > isTableAvailable where you know how many regions there are supposed to > be in the table and it returns true if that count of regions is open > and deployed? > > St.Ack > --bcaec520f3a35a718804a61ccc0a--