hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From James Taylor <jamestay...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Considering a RpcSchedulerFactory change in 0.98 for HBASE-12028
Date Wed, 31 Dec 2014 03:02:48 GMT
Thanks, Andrew. I filed PHOENIX-1569 as well.

On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 4:34 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org> wrote:
> Thanks for the feedback James. I filed HBASE-12787 in response.
>
> On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 3:49 PM, James Taylor <jamestaylor@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
>> bq. How many versions of HBase >= 0.98.10 do you think would need to
>> be binary compatible with 4.2.2?
>>
>> Good question. Do you have an opinion? We have a compatibility check
>> that we do on first connection to a cluster. Perhaps we can add a
>> check of Phoenix server version vs HBase server version to detect a
>> "breakage" scenario? In this case, we'd require the server-side
>> Phoenix version to be bumped up (maybe do this in 4.4?). We can doc it
>> as well, but it's been my experience that folks just don't read this.
>>
>> So perhaps have the reflection in place in HBase long enough for us to
>> get 4.4 out?
>>
>> Thanks for asking!
>>
>>     James
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 3:36 PM, Andrew Purtell
>> <andrew.purtell@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > It would be a binary compatibility break unless we detect by reflection
>> that it's an older factory missing the new 'create' method and therefore
>> call the old one.
>> >
>> > We could add that.
>> >
>> > How many versions of HBase >= 0.98.10 do you think would need to be
>> binary compatible with 4.2.2?
>> >
>> >
>> >> On Dec 30, 2014, at 3:23 PM, James Taylor <jamestaylor@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Would our 4.2.2 binaries continue to work with releases of HBase
>> >> containing this change?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>> On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Enis Söztutar <enis.soz@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>> Thanks Andrew,
>> >>>
>> >>> Once HBASE-12028 is committed it should be easy enough to make the
>> changes
>> >>> in Phoenix to be able to compile with HBase versions pre or post
>> >>> HBASE-12028. But we need a PHOENIX issue for that.
>> >>>
>> >>> We should also make Abortable a LimitedPrivate it seems.
>> >>>
>> >>> Enis
>> >>>
>> >>> On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 2:49 PM, Andrew Purtell <
>> andrew.purtell@gmail.com>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> Hi Phoenix,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Please see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-12028
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The proposed change if committed into 0.98 branch would introduce
a
>> new
>> >>>> 'create' method into the RpcSchedulerFactory interface that receives
>> an
>> >>>> Abortable as an additional parameter. Thus, the factory can pass
this
>> on to
>> >>>> schedulers and workers and if something terrible happens in or to
a
>> RPC
>> >>>> handler they can trigger a server abort. Due to a design oversight
we
>> don't
>> >>>> otherwise have this capability. In my opinion it is important to
fix
>> this
>> >>>> oversight. (Phoenix can also potentially make use of the Abortable
for
>> >>>> fatal issues involving indexes.) Otherwise RPC handlers can silently
>> >>>> terminate upon receiving an unhandled throwable, potentially leaving
>> behind
>> >>>> bad state, certainly impacting performance and availability. However
>> >>>> because RpcSchedulerFactory is an interface any implementor will
not
>> >>>> compile after this change, until updated.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> HBase could include this change in the next 0.98 release or not.
>> Please
>> >>>> advise.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
>
>    - Andy
>
> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
> (via Tom White)

Mime
View raw message