hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: HBASE-6312
Date Tue, 03 Jul 2012 16:54:41 GMT
Here're the knobs for block cache introduced in the patch:

-  static final String LRU_DEFAULT_LOAD_FACTOR =
"hbase.lru.blockcache.default.load.factor";
-  static final String LRU_DEFAULT_CONCURRENCY_LEVEL =
"hbase.lru.blcokcache.default.concurrency.level";
-  static final String LRU_DEFAULT_MIN_FACTOR =
"hbase.lru.blockcache.default.min.factor";
-  static final String LRU_DEFAULT_ACCEPTABLE_FACTOR =
"hbase.lru.blockcache.default.acceptable.factor";
-  static final String LRU_DEFAULT_SINGLE_FACTOR =
"hbase.lru.blockcache.default.single.factor";
-  static final String LRU_DEFAULT_MULTI_FACTOR =
"hbase.lru.blockcache.default.multi.factor";
-  static final String LRU_DEFAULT_MEMORY_FACTOR =
"hbase.lru.blockcache.default.memory.factor";

Slide 11 of J-D's talk mentioned using acceptable factor of 0.95f and min
factor of 0.90f

We should expose these two knobs in my opinion.

On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 9:32 AM, Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org> wrote:

> Continuing discussion while JIRA is not available.
>
> OP wants to make the BlockCache eviction thresholds configurable so
> they don't have to recompile to try J-D's advice on tuning them up. Is
> that really useful? By that I mean are there use cases where a lower
> threshold would make sense? Or should we instead change the constants?
> Or both?
>
> --
> Best regards,
>
>    - Andy
>
> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet
> Hein (via Tom White)
>

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