Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-hbase-issues-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-hbase-issues-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 685EE10F32 for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2013 04:47:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 99788 invoked by uid 500); 10 Sep 2013 04:46:59 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-hbase-issues-archive@hbase.apache.org Received: (qmail 99668 invoked by uid 500); 10 Sep 2013 04:46:59 -0000 Mailing-List: contact issues-help@hbase.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list issues@hbase.apache.org Received: (qmail 99457 invoked by uid 99); 10 Sep 2013 04:46:57 -0000 Received: from arcas.apache.org (HELO arcas.apache.org) (140.211.11.28) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 10 Sep 2013 04:46:57 +0000 Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 04:46:57 +0000 (UTC) From: "Lars Hofhansl (JIRA)" To: issues@hbase.apache.org Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Subject: [jira] [Commented] (HBASE-9469) Synchronous replication MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-JIRA-FingerPrint: 30527f35849b9dde25b450d4833f0394 [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-9469?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13762722#comment-13762722 ] Lars Hofhansl commented on HBASE-9469: -------------------------------------- I doubt We'd get reasonable performance from that. Could be an optional feature. Patches are welcome :) > Synchronous replication > ----------------------- > > Key: HBASE-9469 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-9469 > Project: HBase > Issue Type: New Feature > Reporter: Feng Honghua > Priority: Minor > > Scenario: > A/B clusters with master-master replication, client writes to A cluster and A pushes all writes to B cluster, and when A cluster is down, client switches writing to B cluster. > But the client's write switch is unsafe due to the replication between A/B is asynchronous: a delete to B cluster which aims to delete a put written earlier can fail due to that put is written to A cluster and isn't successfully pushed to B before A is down. It can be worse if this delete is collected(flush and then major compact occurs) before A cluster is up and that put is eventually pushed to B, the put won't ever be deleted. > Can we provide per-table/per-peer synchronous replication which ships the according hlog entry of write before responsing write success to client? By this we can guarantee the client that all write requests for which he got success response when he wrote to A cluster must already have been in B cluster as well. -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira