Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Received: from cust-asf.ponee.io (cust-asf.ponee.io [163.172.22.183]) by cust-asf2.ponee.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11CD9200C3D for ; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 06:35:54 +0100 (CET) Received: by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) id 105C2160B7A; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 05:35:54 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id 5AE3E160B60 for ; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 06:35:53 +0100 (CET) Received: (qmail 92062 invoked by uid 500); 28 Feb 2017 05:35:52 -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 92051 invoked by uid 99); 28 Feb 2017 05:35:52 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd3-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 05:35:52 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd3-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd3-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id 1180C18E847 for ; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 05:35:52 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd3-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.347 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.347 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.999, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.652] autolearn=disabled Received: from mx1-lw-eu.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd3-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.10]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pbF_3qvM2CDG for ; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 05:35:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mailrelay1-us-west.apache.org (mailrelay1-us-west.apache.org [209.188.14.139]) by mx1-lw-eu.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-lw-eu.apache.org) with ESMTP id A6BB05F5F7 for ; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 05:35:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from jira-lw-us.apache.org (unknown [207.244.88.139]) by mailrelay1-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mailrelay1-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id 5F688E0A30 for ; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 05:35:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from jira-lw-us.apache.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jira-lw-us.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at jira-lw-us.apache.org) with ESMTP id 3244524134 for ; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 05:35:46 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 05:35:46 +0000 (UTC) From: "Kahlil Oppenheimer (JIRA)" To: issues@hbase.apache.org Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Subject: [jira] [Updated] (HBASE-17706) TableSkewCostFunction improperly computes max skew MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-JIRA-FingerPrint: 30527f35849b9dde25b450d4833f0394 archived-at: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 05:35:54 -0000 [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-17706?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Kahlil Oppenheimer updated HBASE-17706: --------------------------------------- Attachment: HBASE-17706.patch > TableSkewCostFunction improperly computes max skew > -------------------------------------------------- > > Key: HBASE-17706 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-17706 > Project: HBase > Issue Type: Bug > Components: Balancer > Affects Versions: 1.2.0 > Environment: CentOS Derivative with a derivative of the 3.18.43 kernel. HBase on CDH5.9.0 with some patches. HDFS CDH 5.9.0 with no patches. > Reporter: Kahlil Oppenheimer > Priority: Minor > Labels: patch > Attachments: HBASE-17706.patch > > > We noticed while running unit tests that the TableSkewCostFunction computed cost did not change as the balancer ran and simulated moves across the cluster. After investigating, we found that this happened in particular when the cluster started out with at least one table very strongly skewed. > We noticed that the TableSkewCostFunction depends on a field of the BaseLoadBalancer.Cluster class called numMaxRegionsPerTable, but this field is not properly maintained as regionMoves are simulated for the cluster. The field only ever increases as the maximum number of regions per table increases, but it does not decrease as the maximum number per table goes down. > This patch corrects that behavior so that the field is accurately maintained, and thus the TableSkewCostFunction produces a more correct value as the balancer runs. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.15#6346)