hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jean-Daniel Cryans <jdcry...@apache.org>
Subject Pull instant schema updating out?
Date Mon, 02 Apr 2012 23:56:01 GMT
Hi nifty devs,

After encountering HBASE-5702, I started playing with instant schema
updating (HBASE-4213) a bit more and I must say that it's a bit rough
which makes me wonder... should we pull that code out?

We're in this "interesting" situation in 0.94 where we have two
different ways to alter tables without disabling them and I don't
trust either. I'm pretty sure most of the devs don't even know which
one takes precedence over the other when both are enabled without
looking at the code. Well, right now hbase.online.schema.update.enable
needs to be enabled in order to have
hbase.instant.schema.alter.enabled working. If only the former is
enabled the master handles the alter, else if both are enabled then
it's going to be done via ZK although the master still keeps track of
it.

So the differences between both IIUC:

 - "Online schema update" is a rolling close/open of all the regions
so that they pick up the new HTD. It's handled by the master and has
been in since 0.92. I've used it quite a bit when running other tests
and it's ok as long as regions are not splitting and RS are not
shutting down. We also enabled it on our clusters here since our
regions don't tend to move that much.

 - "Instant schema alter" is instant in the sense that all the regions
are asked to close from the get-go but effectively the region servers
can only close one region at a time. The state of the alter is kept in
ZK and the master has a bunch of watches and logs the progress. It's
new since 0.94 and I'm not sure if anyone is using it. I've tested it
a bit and at the moment I can say the the MonitedTasks handling needs
to be redone, it logs way too much information in the log, but the few
alters I ran worked... It's just a bit hard to know when they're done.

FWIW we could pull either or both out, but instant schema alter hasn't
been in a released version yet so it's unlikely it'll bother someone
while the other is already in use (like here).

Opinions?

Thanks,

J-D

Mime
View raw message