hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Devaraj Das <d...@hortonworks.com>
Subject Re: hbase-5945
Date Wed, 09 Jan 2013 18:59:15 GMT
Hey Stack,
I just uploaded a patch on 5945. The BufferChain stuff is still not
incorporated. I couldn't yet find a good reason in the current
codebase to incorporate it. But as you said, it will be useful in the
context of KeyValue. I have left some TODOs in the patch to accomodate
that (and explained in the jira).

On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 11:32 PM, Stack <stack@duboce.net> wrote:
> Hey boss.  Put some comments up on the issue.  Maybe write up more in the
> issue a high-level on where you would like to drive the issue.  As you say,
> there is overlap with hbase-6521 it seems.  The doc linked to on the latter
> issue suggests rpc is preamble, header, then the protobuf Message (with
> optional encoded data block of KeyValues).  Ditto for the response.
>  Looking at 5945 this seems to be where you are going to?
> Good on you DD,
> St.Ack
> On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Devaraj Das <ddas@hortonworks.com> wrote:
>> Hey Stack, Todd, and others, any chance you guys could take a quick
>> look at the last patch on hbase-5495. Although the patch is not
>> complete (and deserves a good cleanup and double-checks on whether it
>> killed all the buffer copies), it probably gives a good idea on the
>> overall direction. The RPC.proto is some thing that one could start
>> with, and then drill deeper into the other areas. I have only tried to
>> minimize the copies for the request/response bodies. The copy for the
>> header bits would probably be noise and the current patch doesn't try
>> to reduce copies for those..
>> 5945 is related to 6521 (versioning), but I think 5945 is already an
>> improvement over what exists and if folks agree, I could spend some
>> extra time to get it in shape sooner (within a day or two)..
>> Thanks,
>> Devaraj.

View raw message