hbase-issues mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Duo Zhang (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (HBASE-16835) Revisit the zookeeper usage at client side
Date Fri, 14 Oct 2016 05:31:20 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-16835?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15574259#comment-15574259
] 

Duo Zhang commented on HBASE-16835:
-----------------------------------

{quote}
Michael Stack
We have to do the watcher? Its a mistake, no? We should do what asynchbase does where it just
gets what it needs to run from zk then lets go of the connection until error and it needs
to refresh... then reads again.

Maybe we don't have to make the same mistake here?

All clients having a watcher doesn't scale or at least lags.

Duo Zhang
Using watcher could make the code clean as we can always get a value(maybe stale). And I think
zk can handle a large set of connections to it?

Duo Zhang
And now only the clusterId is used I think, it does not use watcher internally. Let's just
remove other stuffs in this class to not prevent the patch to be committed. Let's discuss
the zookeeper thing later.

Michael Stack
Ok
{quote}

> Revisit the zookeeper usage at client side
> ------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: HBASE-16835
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-16835
>             Project: HBase
>          Issue Type: Sub-task
>            Reporter: Duo Zhang
>
> Watcher or not.
> Curator or not.
> Keep connection or not.
> ...



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

Mime
View raw message