hbase-issues mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "stack (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (HBASE-11165) Scaling so cluster can host 1M regions and beyond (50M regions?)
Date Fri, 29 Aug 2014 06:01:54 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-11165?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14114894#comment-14114894

stack commented on HBASE-11165:

bq. I thought that the primary requirement for splittable meta is not really read-write throughput,
but rather the thinking that on large enough cluster with 1M+ regions, meta may not simply
fit in master memory (or JVM would have hard time keeping process consuming that much memory

It'd be both [~mantonov] Scale reads because pieces of meta served by many servers and master
can write in // so scale writes too (though not all ops will be //izable).

Yeah, adding features to meta comes up all the time (today it was adding region flush/compaction
history, previous its keeping hfiles per cf in meta, region replica info, and so on)

bq. I would think that if we want to keep regions as a unit of assignment/recovery, splittable
meta is a the must (so far didn't see an approach describing how to avoid it)

bq. HBASE-10070 is about region replicas ....

I was thinking that we could have meta region replicas to scale out the read i/o using hbase-10070
(solving one of the objections to splitting meta arguments)

bq.  HBASE-11467 is about ZK-less client...

That is the issue where client takes a quorum of masters instead of a quorum of zks, right?
 I was extrapolating that the endpoint of this issue is a quorum of masters where we could
read from any (or at least some reads could be stale...) as another means of scaling out the
read i/o when master and meta colocated.

bq. ...but it would work fine with current single active-many backup-masters schema as well.

Good to know [~mantonov]

bq. I'm thinking that multi-masters and partitioned-masters (if we go in these approaches)
need to be discussed closely together and considering each other, otherwise it'd be really
hard to merge them together later on.

Agree.  This issue seems to be arriving at single master to serve mllions of regions. A quorum
of masters or partitioning master responsibilities for sure should be discussed together but
I don't think they are soln to this issues problem (maybe partitioned master but single server
soln seems simpler?)

bq. I'd be curious to hear more opinions/assessments on how bad is that when master is down,
and what timeframe various people would consider as "generally ok", "kind of long, really
want it to be faster" and "unacceptably long"?

Yes. Will write something up. In fact I don't even think a client can connect to the cluster
currently if master is down which makes a bit of a farce of the above notion and needs fixing.

Let me look at HBASE-7767. I got burned by it today. Its annoying.... to say the least.

Yeah, that seems to be the conclusion that is beginning to prevail  here.

> Scaling so cluster can host 1M regions and beyond (50M regions?)
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: HBASE-11165
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-11165
>             Project: HBase
>          Issue Type: Brainstorming
>            Reporter: stack
>         Attachments: HBASE-11165.zip, Region Scalability test.pdf, zk_less_assignment_comparison_2.pdf
> This discussion issue comes out of "Co-locate Meta And Master HBASE-10569" and comments
on the doc posted there.
> A user -- our Francis Liu -- needs to be able to scale a cluster to do 1M regions maybe
even 50M later.  This issue is about discussing how we will do that (or if not 50M on a cluster,
how otherwise we can attain same end).
> More detail to follow.

This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA

View raw message