hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: backporting HBASE-3777 to 0.90
Date Wed, 05 Oct 2011 15:58:49 GMT
Unit test suite passed for patch v4.

Cheers

On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 8:44 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com> wrote:

> Bright will upload patch v4 which would disable
> TestHCM.testManyNewConnectionsDoesnotOOME (disabled in TRUNK)
>
> Otherwise patch v3 is ready for wider validation effort.
>
> Thanks in advance for people who put this backport in their clusters.
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 3:45 PM, Gary Helmling <ghelmling@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 1:39 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > > I'd switch from -1 to +1 if we can get +1s from people who have tried
>> > > it on clusters with several different real existing apps written by
>> > > several different teams.
>> >
>> >
>> > This makes sense. My +1 was partly an agreement that I'd try it.
>> >
>> >
>> I think I can agree to this as well.  Despite my previous messages, my
>> bigger concern is subtler side effects from scope of the change, which has
>> had longer to bake in 0.92/trunk.  If the patch can be verified in enough
>> real workloads, then I can support it with suitable messaging in the
>> release.
>>
>> Ultimately I think it would be good to more directly expose a cluster
>> "connection" as an entry point to the client APIs.  Then client code could
>> share connections or not, however it chose.  The current dependence on
>> Configuration and hiding under HTable leaves us in an odd gray area where
>> it's not clear if the current behavior is expected/needs to be supported,
>> or
>> just an implementation detail.  But that's a whole separate discussion
>> that
>> may or may not be worth it. :)
>>
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message