Mailing-List: contact dev-help@hbase.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@hbase.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of todd@cloudera.com designates
 209.85.215.54 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <BLU436-SMTP1816B4B59AA6BE6CC770AD48FA90@phx.gbl>
References: 
 <CANc1aFMzpRNgpwSEEpsW4V1sYHNz6KzLz0OYeBrUwnKAbjzBvQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<BLU436-SMTP38E08BA1081A8138F207628FAA0@phx.gbl>
	<CANc1aFOvjwAiQhOAhrmtbA-YzZTaPmwxkCmyzApX5rko-D9h8Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<BLU436-SMTP366800C6B6181A77133BB98FAA0@phx.gbl>
	<CANc1aFMdYvd7S-rt1O1s66soBxNHZUgPwCfM1KUfzbig0Uk=Og@mail.gmail.com>
	<BLU437-SMTP5812F5EF70CC6245C451EB8FAA0@phx.gbl>
	<CANc1aFP52T-MgFRyocN+URX5rJWFvgc70FcRCNyP2BktCxZAaw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAGHyZ6JTeax2sj36MJZ8HJ5jNEgt6zjGC=8r1q6hGJaQAGSDsg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANc1aFMXAzN=_kmgqrX5QrMA_aQPnBfgXHqcHz=KUQONJv5DPQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+RK=_A33QArKhCLBsrfp3MUnDMGHCOYvUneiTneBQCqx+uihA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANc1aFMkXShu72aohP1h=wedFt0ukrw98nR10yCXp1tQvnE2=A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAT7MkpaXkb+wh01Qp9w6HD043uhEWN0Rru=9Q0c7fh9JEV-dw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANc1aFOXA7i6evacLSRtvxtdwz+8S+OJRxuN2V6PSgf82pruRA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAT7Mkr83ZLMGpX21jPeACnAjgO-EGKR0pauZPS7NtQQAFnXgw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANc1aFP1L-ihGxO4xrAZ1bR3TY3Mvj1h2=_we7Uhcg=N60kkog@mail.gmail.com>
	<BLU436-SMTP1816B4B59AA6BE6CC770AD48FA90@phx.gbl>
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 08:46:29 -0700
Message-ID: 
 <CADY20s7S5nKuV4DkrSQcLNswp4_iuLNJJ6HZ5Mta+m2=LY1U-A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Multi-Cluster HBase Client
From: Todd Lipcon <todd@cloudera.com>
To: dev <dev@hbase.apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c3ca2221f8cd0519be1c2e

--001a11c3ca2221f8cd0519be1c2e
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Michael-- the experiences of Google before us and many Cassandra users
indicate that there are many valid use cases for multi-datacenter clients
such as the one Ted has built.

Go read the Tail at Scale paper from CACM for an example of how a multi
cluster client can drop tail latencies by an order of magnitude. As far as
I'm aware, this has been a very common deployment strategy at Google for
close to a decade, for applications that do not require strict consistency.

It's certainly valid and constructive to point out downsides and
limitations of the design, and explain why it might not work for your
applications. Perhaps you need something closer to megastore. But claiming
that all applications look just like your applications, in the presence of
evidence to the contrary, doesn't benefit anyone.

Todd
On Jun 30, 2015 8:37 AM, "Michael Segel" <michael_segel@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Guys,
>
> You really don=E2=80=99t want to do this. (Fault tolerant across a single=
 cluster
> pair=E2=80=A6)
>
> What I didn=E2=80=99t say in my other email is that you=E2=80=99re not be=
ing specific as
> to what constitutes a failure.  Read: How does your client know that you=
=E2=80=99ve
> lost a connection to its primary client?
>
> What you might as well do is to create a load balancing server that will
> then manage the connection to one of N clusters in your replication group=
.
> And even then you=E2=80=99ll want to make this redundant.
> Really?
>
> How often do you have a problem with your client connection?
>
> If so=E2=80=A6 get a new HBase Admin or switch to MapRDB because you have=
 a
> stability problem=E2=80=A6
>
>
> In terms of a generic client who wants to manage multiple connections=E2=
=80=A6
> yeah, that=E2=80=99s a pretty straight forward problem to solve.
> But keep in mind that your cluster isn=E2=80=99t across multiple data cen=
ters but
> that you have multiple clusters.
>
> Of course=E2=80=A6 maybe you=E2=80=99re all on a single cluster and you=
=E2=80=99re using slider =E2=80=A6
> ;-)
>
> Again, please think before you pound code.
>
>
> But hey! What do I know?  I don=E2=80=99t own my IP :-(
>
> ;-P
>
> > On Jun 30, 2015, at 6:24 AM, Ted Malaska <ted.malaska@cloudera.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Cool Let me know.  If we appeal HBase.MCC correctly maybe we can hit tw=
o
> > birds with one stone.  At least the client part.  It would be nice to
> have
> > a client that was configurable and in the core that would support use
> cases
> > like this.
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 9:18 AM, ramkrishna vasudevan <
> > ramkrishna.s.vasudevan@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Thanks Ted.
> >>
> >> Ya as you said the idea is to solve a bigger use case where there is a
> >> globally distributed cluster but the data is local to each cluster - i=
e.
> >> the data that we write and read is local to that geography or cluster.
> The
> >> cross site Big table will help you to read and write from such a clust=
er
> >> transparently just by differentiating them with a cluster id.
> >>
> >> But the other subset of the problem that HBase.MCC solves can also be
> >> achieved because the failover switching during writes/reads happens
> based
> >> on the replication setup that is available in that local cluster.
> >>
> >> The state of CSBT - I need to know the latest update but it was earlie=
r
> >> discussed that CSBT cannot be part of the hbase-package but as a stand
> >> alone tool. I can get the update on that.
> >>
> >> Regards
> >> Ram
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 5:05 PM, Ted Malaska <ted.malaska@cloudera.com=
>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hey Ramkrishna,
> >>>
> >>> I think your right that are some things that are the same.  The
> >> difference
> >>> is the problem they are trying to solve and the scope.
> >>>
> >>> In the HBase.MCC design it is only about cluster fail over and keepin=
g
> >> 100%
> >>> up time in the case of single site failure.  The Cross-site Big Table
> >> looks
> >>> to have some of that too, but also it is more complex because it has
> the
> >>> requirement of data being local to a single cluster.  So you need to
> see
> >>> all the clusters to get all the data.
> >>>
> >>> May be I'm wrong by they are not solving for the same problem.  Also
> >>> because of the HBase.MCC limited scope it is far easier to implement
> and
> >>> maintain.
> >>>
> >>> Now all through I agree that the Cross site Big Table has a valid use
> >>> case.  The use case for HBase.MCC is to more set an equal the ground
> with
> >>> Cassandra in the market place.  To allow us to have eventual
> consistency
> >> in
> >>> the case of single site failure.  With configs to determine what
> >> thresholds
> >>> must be pasted before exciting those eventual consistency records.
> >>>
> >>> This will allow HBase to better compete for use cases that involve Ne=
ar
> >>> Real Time Streaming.  This is important because this is the new hot
> trend
> >>> in the market today to move your batch to near real time.  I think
> HBase
> >> is
> >>> the best solution out there today for this but for the fake that at
> site
> >> or
> >>> region server failure we loss functionality. (Read and Write on site
> >>> failure, and write on RS failure)
> >>>
> >>> In the end HBase.MCC's scope is what hopefully should make it excitin=
g.
> >>> All we need to do is make a new client and update the connection
> factory
> >> to
> >>> give you that multi cluster client when requested through the configs=
.
> >> No
> >>> updates to ZK or HBase core would have to be touched.
> >>>
> >>> Side note: Because of the flexibility in the HBase.MCC configs there
> is a
> >>> way to reach a good majority of the Cross-site BigTable goals with ju=
st
> >>> HBase.MCC.
> >>> Last question: What became of Cross-site BigTable?
> >>>
> >>> Let me know if you find this correct.
> >>> Thanks
> >>> Ted Malaska
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 12:42 AM, ramkrishna vasudevan <
> >>> ramkrishna.s.vasudevan@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hi Ted
> >>>>
> >>>> I think the idea here is very similar to the Cross-site Big Table
> >> project
> >>>> that was presented in HBaseCon 2014.
> >>>>
> >>>> Pls find the slide linke below
> >>>> http://www.slideshare.net/HBaseCon/ecosystem-session-3.
> >>>> This project also adds a client side wrappers so that the client can
> >>>> internally do a failover in case of a cluster going down and
> >>> automatically
> >>>> switching over to the replicated clusters based on the configuration=
s.
> >>> Let
> >>>> us know if you find this interesting.
> >>>>
> >>>> Regards
> >>>> Ram
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 4:01 AM, Ted Malaska <
> ted.malaska@cloudera.com
> >>>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> lol I did sorry, this is the right doc
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> https://github.com/tmalaska/HBase.MCC/blob/master/MultiHBaseClientDesignD=
oc.docx.pdf
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 6:30 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.or=
g
> >>>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> I think you may have put up the wrong document? That link goes to
> >>>> product
> >>>>>> doc.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 3:24 PM, Ted Malaska <
> >>> ted.malaska@cloudera.com
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Here is the PDF link.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> https://github.com/tmalaska/HBase.MCC/blob/master/MultiClusterAndEDH_Late=
st.docx.pdf
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 6:09 PM, Sean Busbey <
> >> busbey@cloudera.com>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Michael,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> This is the dev list, no sound-bite pitch is needed. We have
> >>> plenty
> >>>>> of
> >>>>>>>> features that take time to explain the nuance. Please either
> >>> engage
> >>>>>> with
> >>>>>>>> the complexity of the topic or wait for the feature to land and
> >>> get
> >>>>>>>> user-accessible documentation. We all get busy from time to
> >> time,
> >>>> but
> >>>>>>>> that's no reason to push a higher burden on those who are
> >>> currently
> >>>>>>> engaged
> >>>>>>>> with a particular effort, especially this early in development.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> That said, the first paragraph gives a suitable brief
> >> motivation
> >>>>>>> (slightly
> >>>>>>>> rephrased below):
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Some applications require response and availability SLAs
> >> that a
> >>>>>> single
> >>>>>>>> HBase cluster can not meet alone. Particularly for
> >>>>>>>>> high percentiles, queries to a single cluster can be delayed
> >> by
> >>>>> e.g.
> >>>>>> GC
> >>>>>>>> pauses, individual server process failure, or maintenance
> >>>>>>>>> activity. By providing clients with a transparent
> >> multi-cluster
> >>>>>>>> configuration option we can avoid these outlier conditions by
> >>>>>>>>> mask these failures from applications that are tolerant to
> >>> weaker
> >>>>>>>> consistency guarantees than HBase provides out of the box.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Ted,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Thanks for writing this up! We'd prefer to keep discussion of
> >> it
> >>> on
> >>>>> the
> >>>>>>>> mailing list, so please avoid moving to private webex's.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Would you mind if I or one of the other community members
> >>> converted
> >>>>> the
> >>>>>>>> design doc to pdf so that it's more accessible?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 4:52 PM, Ted Malaska <
> >>>>> ted.malaska@cloudera.com
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Why don't we set up a webex to talk out the detail.  What
> >> times
> >>>> r u
> >>>>>>> open
> >>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>> talk this week.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> But to answer your questions.  This is for active active and
> >>>> active
> >>>>>>>>> failover clusters.  There is a primary and n number of fail
> >>> overs
> >>>>> per
> >>>>>>>>> client.  This is for gets and puts.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> There r a number of configs in the doc to define how to
> >>> failover.
> >>>>>> The
> >>>>>>>>> options allow a couple different use cases.  There is a lot
> >> of
> >>>>> detail
> >>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>> the doc and I just didn't want to put it all in the email.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> But honestly I put a lot of time in the doc.   I would love
> >> to
> >>>> know
> >>>>>>> what
> >>>>>>>> u
> >>>>>>>>> think.
> >>>>>>>>> On Jun 29, 2015 5:46 PM, "Michael Segel" <
> >>>>> michael_segel@hotmail.com>
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Ted,
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> If you can=E2=80=99t do a 30 second pitch, then its not worth =
the
> >>>> effort.
> >>>>>> ;-)
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Look, when someone says that they want to have a single
> >>> client
> >>>>> talk
> >>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>> multiple HBase clusters, that could mean two very different
> >>>>> things.
> >>>>>>>>>> First, you could mean that you want a single client to
> >>> connect
> >>>> to
> >>>>>> an
> >>>>>>>>>> active/active pair of HBase clusters where they replicate
> >> to
> >>>> each
> >>>>>>>> other.
> >>>>>>>>>> (Active / Passive would also be implied, but then you have
> >>> the
> >>>>>> issue
> >>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>> when does the passive cluster go active? )
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Then you have the issue of someone wanting to talk to
> >>> multiple
> >>>>>>>> different
> >>>>>>>>>> clusters so that they can query the data, create local data
> >>>> sets
> >>>>>>> which
> >>>>>>>>> they
> >>>>>>>>>> wish to join, combining data from various sources.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> The second is a different problem from the first.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> -Mike
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 29, 2015, at 3:38 PM, Ted Malaska <
> >>>>>> ted.malaska@cloudera.com
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Hey Michael,
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Read the doc please.  It goes through everything at a low
> >>>>> level.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
> >>>>>>>>>>> Ted Malaska
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 4:36 PM, Michael Segel <
> >>>>>>>>>> michael_segel@hotmail.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> No down time?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> So you want a client to go against a pair of
> >> active/active
> >>>>> hbase
> >>>>>>>>>> instances
> >>>>>>>>>>>> on tied clusters?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 29, 2015, at 3:20 PM, Ted Malaska <
> >>>>>>> ted.malaska@cloudera.com
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hey Michael,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The use case is simple "No down time use cases" even in
> >>> the
> >>>>>> case
> >>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>> site
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> failure.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Now on this statement
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Why not simply manage each connection/context via a
> >>>> threaded
> >>>>>>>> child?"
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> That is the point, to make that simple, tested, easy,
> >> and
> >>>>>>>> transparent
> >>>>>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> HBase users.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Ted Malaska
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Michael Segel <
> >>>>>>>>>>>> michael_segel@hotmail.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> So if I understand your goal, you want a client who
> >> can
> >>>>>> connect
> >>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>> one
> >>>>>>>>>>>> or
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> more hbase clusters at the same time=E2=80=A6
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ok, so lets walk through the use case and help me
> >>>>> understand a
> >>>>>>>>> couple
> >>>>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> use cases for this=E2=80=A6
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why not simply manage each connection/context via a
> >>>> threaded
> >>>>>>>> child?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 29, 2015, at 1:48 PM, Ted Malaska <
> >>>>>>>> ted.malaska@cloudera.com
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hey Dev List,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My name is Ted Malaska, long time lover and user of
> >>>> HBase.
> >>>>> I
> >>>>>>>> would
> >>>>>>>>>> like
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discuss adding in a multi-cluster client into HBase.
> >>> Here
> >>>>> is
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>> link
> >>>>>>>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the design doc (
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> https://github.com/tmalaska/HBase.MCC/blob/master/MultiHBaseClientDesignD=
oc.docx%20(1).docx
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> )
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but I have pulled some parts into this main e-mail to
> >>>> give
> >>>>>> you
> >>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>> high
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> level
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding of it's scope.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Goals*
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The proposed solution is a multi-cluster HBase client
> >>>> that
> >>>>>>> relies
> >>>>>>>>> on
> >>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> existing HBase Replication functionality to provide
> >> an
> >>>>>> eventual
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> consistent
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> solution in cases of primary cluster down time.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>> https://github.com/tmalaska/HBase.MCC/blob/master/FailoverImage.png
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Additional goals are:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Be able to switch between single HBase clusters to
> >>>>>> Multi-HBase
> >>>>>>>>> Client
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with limited or no code changes.  This means using
> >> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> HConnectionManager,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Connection, and Table interfaces to hide complexities
> >>>> from
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> developer
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Connection and Table are the new classes for
> >>>> HConnection,
> >>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HTableInterface in HBase version 0.99).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Offer thresholds to allow developers to decide
> >> between
> >>>>>> degrees
> >>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> strongly consistent and eventually consistent.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Support N number of linked HBase Clusters
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Read-Replicas*
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also note this is in alinement with Read-Replicas and
> >>> can
> >>>>>> work
> >>>>>>>> with
> >>>>>>>>>>>> that.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This client is multi-cluster where Read-Replicas help
> >>> us
> >>>> to
> >>>>>> be
> >>>>>>>>> multi
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Region
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Server.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Replication*
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You will also see in the document that this works
> >> with
> >>>>>> current
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> replication
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and requires no changes to it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Only a Client change*
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You will also see in the doc this is only a new
> >> client.
> >>>>> Which
> >>>>>>>> means
> >>>>>>>>>> no
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> extra code for the end developer, only addition
> >> configs
> >>>> to
> >>>>>> set
> >>>>>>> it
> >>>>>>>>> up.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Github*
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is a github project that shows that this works
> >> at:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/tmalaska/HBase.MCC
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note this is only a prototype. When adding it to
> >> HBase
> >>> we
> >>>>>> will
> >>>>>>>> use
> >>>>>>>>> it
> >>>>>>>>>>>> as
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> starting point but there will be changes.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Initial Results:*
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Red is where our primary cluster has failed and you
> >>> will
> >>>>> see
> >>>>>>> from
> >>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bottom to graphs that our puts, deletes, and gets are
> >>> not
> >>>>>>>>>> interrupted.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> https://github.com/tmalaska/HBase.MCC/blob/master/AveragePutTimeWithMulti=
RestartsAndShutDowns.png
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ted Malaska
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The opinions expressed here are mine, while they may
> >>>>> reflect a
> >>>>>>>>>> cognitive
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> thought, that is purely accidental.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Use at your own risk.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael Segel
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> michael_segel (AT) hotmail.com
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> The opinions expressed here are mine, while they may
> >>>> reflect a
> >>>>>>>>> cognitive
> >>>>>>>>>>>> thought, that is purely accidental.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Use at your own risk.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Michael Segel
> >>>>>>>>>>>> michael_segel (AT) hotmail.com
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> The opinions expressed here are mine, while they may
> >> reflect
> >>> a
> >>>>>>>> cognitive
> >>>>>>>>>> thought, that is purely accidental.
> >>>>>>>>>> Use at your own risk.
> >>>>>>>>>> Michael Segel
> >>>>>>>>>> michael_segel (AT) hotmail.com
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>> Sean
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Best regards,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>   - Andy
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Pie=
t
> >>>> Hein
> >>>>>> (via Tom White)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
>
> The opinions expressed here are mine, while they may reflect a cognitive
> thought, that is purely accidental.
> Use at your own risk.
> Michael Segel
> michael_segel (AT) hotmail.com
>
>
>
>
>
>

--001a11c3ca2221f8cd0519be1c2e--