Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-hbase-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-hbase-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 49CD495A4 for ; Tue, 3 Jul 2012 16:55:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 75642 invoked by uid 500); 3 Jul 2012 16:55:09 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-hbase-dev-archive@hbase.apache.org Received: (qmail 75587 invoked by uid 500); 3 Jul 2012 16:55:09 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@hbase.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@hbase.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@hbase.apache.org Received: (qmail 75578 invoked by uid 99); 3 Jul 2012 16:55:09 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 03 Jul 2012 16:55:09 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of yuzhihong@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.51 as permitted sender) Received: from [74.125.82.51] (HELO mail-wg0-f51.google.com) (74.125.82.51) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 03 Jul 2012 16:55:03 +0000 Received: by wgbed3 with SMTP id ed3so4843631wgb.20 for ; Tue, 03 Jul 2012 09:54:42 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=cyyXyqvEEHfLvby7+6QfnxRsZc1PbKddvCKNxzJ36qE=; b=JmRwm7JRV61BCXo5Qs4CfkHtsVs80qhBA7iQNKccYAj1dv99yuhva+IrMwEl3DMoFl +SOegOjW0j4mICELQf0a6X67pNsZ6p1TM1AbVklNy7A+1XYxiOGmv8v6gcjzAwvnf/qR JUnjMqXzh9WiiE16TD7D55i8nBLDm1BuzAM01RZ5sCa1pPD5hoW0lnLMgVamQY5XFTg+ gssu3zn8Tyl2OzXq0+ewj0AHqm0m5AbAGeqDVgjJmwCaHmFq2NbMIq26BVHT8UYgeddf Vwjc+iyYciyrzFqtamtbuWcV/kcZk8m+5b23SIVxL0EefMdL+TzrqzdKN7jNRXk7njk+ YvRg== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.180.78.161 with SMTP id c1mr26711443wix.1.1341334481887; Tue, 03 Jul 2012 09:54:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.12.205 with HTTP; Tue, 3 Jul 2012 09:54:41 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 09:54:41 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: HBASE-6312 From: Ted Yu To: dev@hbase.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d0435c0325160c704c3efc5e9 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --f46d0435c0325160c704c3efc5e9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 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 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) > --f46d0435c0325160c704c3efc5e9--