Mailing-List: contact hbase-issues-help@hadoop.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: hbase-issues@hadoop.apache.org
Message-ID: <1642308788.451111269396387147.JavaMail.jira@brutus.apache.org>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 02:06:27 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Todd Lipcon (JIRA)" <jira@apache.org>
To: hbase-issues@hadoop.apache.org
Subject: [jira] Commented: (HBASE-2353) HBASE-2283 removed bulk sync
 optimization for multi-row puts
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-2353?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12849016#action_12849016 ] 

Todd Lipcon commented on HBASE-2353:
------------------------------------

{quote}
Are you willing to cripple the performance of hbase put speed to
ensure certain log atomic order of operation guarantees in a bulk
insert case?
{quote}

I think it's crucial that correctness is an _option_. That is to say, I am strongly
against any design that _precludes_ correct operation of bulk puts (where correct
is the set of guarantees we're talking about in HBASE-2294 - visible edits must be
durable, etc). I also am totally with you that for cases like mapreduce bulk loads
there should be a "throw caution to the wind and shove that data in as fast as
our little hard drives can spin" _option_.

> HBASE-2283 removed bulk sync optimization for multi-row puts
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: HBASE-2353
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-2353
>             Project: Hadoop HBase
>          Issue Type: Bug
>            Reporter: ryan rawson
>             Fix For: 0.21.0
>
>         Attachments: HBASE-2353-deferred.txt
>
>
> previously to HBASE-2283 we used to call flush/sync once per put(Put[]) call (ie: batch of commits).  Now we do for every row.  
> This makes bulk uploads slower if you are using WAL.  Is there an acceptable solution to achieve both safety and performance by bulk-sync'ing puts?  Or would this not work in face of atomic guarantees?
> discuss!

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.