Mailing-List: contact dev-help@hbase.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@hbase.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of anty.rao@gmail.com designates
 209.85.220.169 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=weYB69EUf7rxfB6ThRhulyb0wjY7hN+5gdIIquuCkrHa2xhI5C4FAFfOhhaS9RLHBx
         DrHTUEutCbJIFTiVkN/BmUzBWbQpPssIR4eCOaV3yNEFu2YlX771tIByacqNprywGJg6
         WxMn+/ZZhEU3B7ELnmDlIvjRiDikQO/TWnIXc=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTimD9OoAggZnsrwb1TL0aSnhWp4gxA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BANLkTi=tbm4XaFfpy8ASu9GraAK=3znyiw@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTinwk632p073poQW5a42zOCeY8W7nQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTikTWCDjWJZpRQMx73c6iEBsbiwF2w@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTimVkrdMnYm4h_Tgcnt0b03N3HyzRQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTimD9OoAggZnsrwb1TL0aSnhWp4gxA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2011 14:26:01 +0800
Message-ID: <BANLkTikhoOry=ZPmLuYD6xa6C1R=-r6=LQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: HBase balancer policy issue
From: Anty <anty.rao@gmail.com>
To: dev@hbase.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec548aa872feb0204a4a09810

--bcaec548aa872feb0204a4a09810
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 11:02 AM, Stack <stack@duboce.net> wrote:

> If compacting, don't we interrupt it so we can close and move the
> region.  You are worried about the compacting work done so far -- you
> don't want to lose it?  So you are suggesting that a region should be
> able to say "No, not now!  I'm busy?" (We'd need to distingush between
> a balancer 'move' and a move or close for any other region).
>
Yes, that's exactly what i want to  convey.
Can this consideration be included in balancer?

>
> St.Ack
>
> On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 7:44 PM, Anty <anty.rao@gmail.com> wrote:
> > When doing balance, Can we take into account the compaction status of
> > regions.
> > Currently, even the region is doing compaction, it can also be
> interrupted
> > to response to reassign.
> >
> >
> > On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 12:57 AM, Schubert Zhang <zsongbo@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Thanks, I think it is HBASE-3373
> >>
> >> On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 11:33 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > I think your request is described in
> >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-3373
> >> >
> >> > Practically speaking, the scenario below can hardly occur (in trunk,
> at
> >> > least).
> >> > If the tables are created with pre-split regions, the regions would be
> >> > round-robin distributed.
> >> > If the tables are created with single region, subsequent write
> operations
> >> > would cause the region split. Balancer would offload young regions to
> >> other
> >> > servers - see HBASE-3609
> >> > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-3609>which is not in
> 0.90
> >> > branch.
> >> >
> >> > Refer to
> >> >
> http://zhihongyu.blogspot.com/2011/04/load-balancer-in-hbase-090.htmlfor
> >> > details.
> >> >
> >> > Cheers
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 12:25 AM, Schubert Zhang <zsongbo@gmail.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > I have a question about HBase balancer.
> >> > >
> >> > > In release 0.90.x, it seems the balancer only regards the number of
> >> > regions
> >> > > and balance these regions into every regionserver.
> >> > >
> >> > > If we have two tables (A and B) now, each have 100 regions.
> >> > > Then, a extreme situation is:
> >> > >
> >> > > RegionsServer1: 100 regions, which all belong to table A
> >> > > RegionsServer2: 100 regions, which all belong to table B
> >> > >
> >> > > If my application access table B heavy, the almost all opetations
> hit
> >> > > RegionsServer2, it is not balance.
> >> > >
> >> > > I have a idea about the balance policy:
> >> > > (1) Firstly balance for each table
> >> > > (2) Then, overall balance.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > Schubert
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best Regards
> > Anty Rao
> >
>


-- 
Best Regards
Anty Rao

--bcaec548aa872feb0204a4a09810--