hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org>
Subject Re: thrift vs thrift2
Date Sat, 08 Dec 2012 05:06:39 GMT
IIRC the FB guys concluded the reverse, that it's better to provision
Thrift endpoints as a tier separate from RegionServers, so there can be
caching there, so the thrift servers in the RS don't bottleneck, etc.

On Saturday, December 8, 2012, lars hofhansl wrote:

> It's quite a useful experiment, though, standing up separate thrift
> servers adds more complexity to a deployment.
>
> If it is really abandoned we should just rip it out, no? Otherwise I'd
> think at least in principle that is useful (also considering potential
> future enhancement that we do knowing the thrift server is in process with
> the RegionServer).
>
> -- Lars
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>  From: Stack <stack@duboce.net <javascript:;>>
> To: HBase Dev List <dev@hbase.apache.org <javascript:;>>
> Sent: Friday, December 7, 2012 3:16 PM
> Subject: Re: thrift vs thrift2
>
> On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Luke Lu <llu@apache.org <javascript:;>>
> wrote:
>
> > The embeded HRegionThriftServer should be ported to thrift2 before we
> > deprecate thrift1. FB's (and potentially others) c++ client requires
> > HRegionThriftServer.
> >
>
> HRTS is an abandoned experiment as I understand it so I closed HBASE-7302,
> the issue that would perpetuate it in thrift2.
> St.Ack



-- 
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