hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From lars hofhansl <lhofha...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: Hbase Assignments in trunk.
Date Mon, 10 Sep 2012 22:29:59 GMT
I've been saying a while ago that we should require ZK 3.4.x for 0.96+.

Distributed consensus without a "transaction" option always rang a bit weird to me.

Maybe switch in 0.98+?

-- Lars

----- Original Message -----
From: n keywal <nkeywal@gmail.com>
To: dev@hbase.apache.org
Sent: Thursday, September 6, 2012 12:53 AM
Subject: Re: Hbase Assignments in trunk.

On the Async vs. sync: there are 3 different ways to write multiple znodes
in ZK, and huge differences in the performances between them:

1) for loop sync
2) for loop async
3) multi

Async will be 20 to 100 times faster than sync. multi will be 2 to 4 times
faster than async (that is, 80 to 400 times faster than sync).

Multi was not available before ZK 3.4. It has several obvious advantages
over async imho: it's faster, it's synchronous and it's a transaction. That
simplifies the user code usually.

It has other advantages:
- async and sync will typically send 1 or more packet per znode (naggle is
not activated iirc), while there will be only a few packets for all the
znodes with multi
- you can expect async to write multiple times on the disk, while multi
should write only once. This is usually better for i/o performances.

On a serious recovery situation, with all the regions moving all other the
place, saving disk and network i/o for ZooKeeper is important.

Disadvantage: it's new.

On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 7:49 AM, Stack <stack@duboce.net> wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 5:17 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <jon@cloudera.com> wrote:
> > Here's a link to the pdf/picture.
> >
> > http://people.apache.org/~jmhsieh/hbase/120905-hbase-assignment.pdf
> >
> Pretty picture.  Not a pretty story.
> What you thinking?
> St.Ack

View raw message