Mailing-List: contact issues-help@hbase.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 19:28:13 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Nick Dimiduk (JIRA)" <jira@apache.org>
To: issues@hbase.apache.org
Message-ID: <JIRA.12762928.1419014311000.71388.1419017293675@Atlassian.JIRA>
In-Reply-To: <JIRA.12762928.1419014311000@Atlassian.JIRA>
References: <JIRA.12762928.1419014311000@Atlassian.JIRA>
 <JIRA.12762928.1419014311053@arcas>
Subject: [jira] [Commented] (HBASE-12728) buffered writes substantially less
 useful after removal of HTablePool
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-12728?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14253861#comment-14253861 ] 

Nick Dimiduk commented on HBASE-12728:
--------------------------------------

It seems like we would want to push HTable's aswyncWriteBuffer down into the connection, we'd have one for each unique table name. I'm not sure where AP responsible for actually sending edits would sit -- its executor is managed by the table at the moment. Connection teardown would also need to check the buffers and send any pending data.

> buffered writes substantially less useful after removal of HTablePool
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: HBASE-12728
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-12728
>             Project: HBase
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: hbase
>    Affects Versions: 0.98.0
>            Reporter: Aaron Beppu
>
> In previous versions of HBase, when use of HTablePool was encouraged, HTable instances were long-lived in that pool, and for that reason, if autoFlush was set to false, the table instance could accumulate a full buffer of writes before a flush was triggered. Writes from the client to the cluster could then be substantially larger and less frequent than without buffering.
> However, when HTablePool was deprecated, the primary justification seems to have been that creating HTable instances is cheap, so long as the connection and executor service being passed to it are pre-provided. A use pattern was encouraged where users should create a new HTable instance for every operation, using an existing connection and executor service, and then close the table. In this pattern, buffered writes are substantially less useful; writes are as small and as frequent as they would have been with autoflush=true, except the synchronous write is moved from the operation itself to the table close call which immediately follows.
> More concretely :
> ```
> // Given these two helpers ...
> private HTableInterface getAutoFlushTable(String tableName) throws IOException {
>   // (autoflush is true by default)
>   return storedConnection.getTable(tableName, executorService);
> }
> private HTableInterface getBufferedTable(String tableName) throws IOException {
>   HTableInterface table = getAutoFlushTable(tableName);
>   table.setAutoFlush(false);
>   return table;
> }
> // it's my contention that these two methods would behave almost identically,
> // except the first will hit a synchronous flush during the put call,
> and the second will
> // flush during the (hidden) close call on table.
> private void writeAutoFlushed(Put somePut) throws IOException {
>   try (HTableInterface table = getAutoFlushTable(tableName)) {
>     table.put(somePut); // will do synchronous flush
>   }
> }
> private void writeBuffered(Put somePut) throws IOException {
>   try (HTableInterface table = getBufferedTable(tableName)) {
>     table.put(somePut);
>   } // auto-close will trigger synchronous flush
> }
> ```
> For buffered writes to actually provide a performance benefit to users, one of two things must happen:
> - The writeBuffer itself shouldn't live, flush and die with the lifecycle of it's HTableInstance. If the writeBuffer were managed elsewhere and had a long lifespan, this could cease to be an issue. However, if the same writeBuffer is appended to by multiple tables, then some additional concurrency control will be needed around it.
> - Alternatively, there should be some pattern for having long-lived HTable instances. However, since HTable is not thread-safe, we'd need multiple instances, and a mechanism for leasing them out safely -- which sure sounds a lot like the old HTablePool to me.
> See discussion on mailing list here : http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/hbase-user/201412.mbox/%3CCAPdJLkEzmUQZ_kvD%3D8mrxi4V%3DhCmUp3g9MUZsddD%2Bmon%2BAvNtg%40mail.gmail.com%3E


--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)