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 5F47F196B0 for ; Fri, 29 Apr 2016 02:11:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 1576 invoked by uid 500); 29 Apr 2016 02:11:13 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-hbase-issues-archive@hbase.apache.org Received: (qmail 1517 invoked by uid 500); 29 Apr 2016 02:11:13 -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 1501 invoked by uid 99); 29 Apr 2016 02:11:13 -0000 Received: from arcas.apache.org (HELO arcas) (140.211.11.28) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 29 Apr 2016 02:11:13 +0000 Received: from arcas.apache.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by arcas (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF9F82C1F60 for ; Fri, 29 Apr 2016 02:11:12 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2016 02:11:12 +0000 (UTC) From: "Duo Zhang (JIRA)" To: issues@hbase.apache.org Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Subject: [jira] [Commented] (HBASE-15536) Make AsyncFSWAL as our default WAL 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-15536?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15263410#comment-15263410 ] Duo Zhang commented on HBASE-15536: ----------------------------------- {quote} Maybe add a note on commit to the DefaultWALProvider about this 'odd' fact. {quote} I think we could change the name of DefaultWALProvider to a more reasonable name, but still map 'o.a.h.h.regionserver.wal.DefaultWALProvider' to the renamed class. This does not break the config compatibility. {quote} Any place you know where we are missing coverage? Any secure deploy type? Or a deploy type that needs more testing? Could file an issue for such 'weak' areas. {quote} Two things I can tell right now. First is what if the whole HDFS crashes. Of course we can say that if HDFS crashes then we can not guarantee much since we heavily rely on HDFS. But if the behavior is changed then the end users may need to change their maintain guide of how to deal with HDFS crash. Second is the performance of secure output. Thanks. > Make AsyncFSWAL as our default WAL > ---------------------------------- > > Key: HBASE-15536 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15536 > Project: HBase > Issue Type: Sub-task > Affects Versions: 2.0.0 > Reporter: Duo Zhang > Assignee: Duo Zhang > Fix For: 2.0.0 > > Attachments: HBASE-15536-v1.patch, HBASE-15536-v2.patch, HBASE-15536.patch > > > As it should be predicated on passing basic cluster ITBLL -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.4#6332)