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
 74.125.83.169 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=It3D6xdWqwP0I+wAItzOF/IvJlkLcXsA4Iz8xDLg01SINqeoGUYpcrILHMxWtTz+da
         3UY4XikAH37HKC2S3W/vw81n5O3Rb7zhAFOcz4J/mDfVZLgWPOzZMofjE1aT69VcaAsn
         H2Wi135XN/u8EHEb/mLwvS1Q9RFs7Ztl8rfhU=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTin7zZZ4m2P9GZt+EvuincxypJ8Ctg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BANLkTiks9WM7OhNY1UKARgaNdSXU+9VRVQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTikiWOPZjkau7XTu326JHods=diaZw@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTimkfpuOav4K0BE=CXy4AeJVubtbRg@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTimB3HKKNbDEmx9jbH4KdU7qvrSnjw@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTin7zZZ4m2P9GZt+EvuincxypJ8Ctg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 08:43:09 +0800
Message-ID: <BANLkTin6bDBMaC-53cuNEWWbXC++JMSbYg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: HBASE 3904
From: Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com>
To: dev@hbase.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec53ae8a073c55a04a5ddabe3

--bcaec53ae8a073c55a04a5ddabe3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Here is the scenario that
Vidhyashankar<https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ViewProfile.jspa?name=vidhyash>
will
run into after HBA.createTable() is modified:

HBA.createTable() takes too long to execute. Client receives Socket timeout
exception.
Client calls HCM.isTableAvailable() which would report inaccurate status.
I want to get other developers' opinion on whether HCM.isTableAvailable()
should be accurate.

Thanks

On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 5:49 AM, Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com> wrote:

> That's my interpretation after reading it again as well.
> So I will put HBA.createTable() back to being synchronous again for 3904.
> Cheers
>   On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 5:46 AM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <jdcryans@apache.org
> > wrote:
>
>> I don't want to be thick, but I don't see where in that jira the fact
>> that createTable became synchronous was stated as an issue. All I see
>> is that it became affected by all the other region in transitions as
>> well, which is orthogonal to our discussion.
>>
>> J-D
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 2:39 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-3744 has been fixed.
>> >
>> > FYI
>> > On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 5:32 AM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <
>> jdcryans@apache.org>wrote:
>> >
>> >> Can you point to the issue where Todd did the revert?
>> >>
>> >> Thx,
>> >>
>> >> J-D
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > Hi,
>> >> > J-D recently expressed the idea of changing behavior of
>> HBA.createTable()
>> >> to
>> >> > be consistent with its javadoc.
>> >> > Meaning, HBA.createTable() should be synchronous.
>> >> >
>> >> > Todd reported an issue which resulted in reverting my changes that
>> caused
>> >> > HBA.createTable() to be synchronous.
>> >> >
>> >> > I want to see if we can reach consensus on how HBASE 3904 should be
>> >> handled.
>> >> >
>> >> > We have 3 options:
>> >> > 1. making HBA.createTable() to be synchronous in TRUNK
>> >> > 2. pass initial region count in HTD
>> >> > 3. add new method in HBA for synchronous table creation
>> >> >
>> >> > Thanks
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>>
>
>

--bcaec53ae8a073c55a04a5ddabe3--