Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-hbase-user-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 25187 invoked from network); 29 Mar 2011 17:44:55 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 29 Mar 2011 17:44:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 24942 invoked by uid 500); 29 Mar 2011 17:44:54 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-hbase-user-archive@hbase.apache.org Received: (qmail 24896 invoked by uid 500); 29 Mar 2011 17:44:54 -0000 Mailing-List: contact user-help@hbase.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: user@hbase.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list user@hbase.apache.org Received: (qmail 24888 invoked by uid 99); 29 Mar 2011 17:44:54 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 17:44:54 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=5.0 tests=FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of yuzhihong@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.41 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.214.41] (HELO mail-bw0-f41.google.com) (209.85.214.41) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 17:44:46 +0000 Received: by bwz17 with SMTP id 17so526831bwz.14 for ; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 10:44:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=YkcqC2n1oV7x1IzjyDKk5dCLt9XKih+NAIbf3toiZ54=; b=ejUC0/Evp5jeyRGgMeu9hkpCnXgNOmWvIwwS1aP+f4z6r1DXgljCOGehNt2lMda6Q4 LfsPj1N4XFAXd8IzHaNlaKZl8cl4Ld8bwDdiXHh3R/xS9WuQUiD0OgxQLItfSfStaZ+2 zbk/t3el2uFbreNo256aEYBflc1dVRdj7NUe4= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=I8k92jWFyFV4JqyaudpfnFpwpOh9OXRAtKUABjmTEs60QGizLLo2APQH/z2BNYbNra 9z+D/cEzRVhZXn1PjfwAyyBcHyBVstws2vObQLk3ZfLjWUPnRNuIOVmZrRczG0VwOp+k VA3UWSO8cZVLsa5jCwnjJ6GSKAImsBbXooiPQ= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.11.13 with SMTP id r13mr81579bkr.35.1301420665583; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 10:44:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.32.72 with HTTP; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 10:44:25 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 10:44:25 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: question about region assignment From: Ted Yu To: user@hbase.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00032555539e79b848049fa29c6b X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --00032555539e79b848049fa29c6b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Are you using 0.90.1 (where regions are randomly distributed across cluser) ? I logged HBASE-3373 but was told it is specific to our usage. On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 10:39 AM, Jack Levin wrote: > Hello, we have this one table what about 12 regions, that is super hot > with writes, for some reason most of the regions were assigned to a > single server, which cause it to flush and compact every 10 minutes, > causing suboptimal performance. We do use random row_keys, so I don't > see how sorted ROWs can land on single region anyway, the issue was > that each region was assigned to the same region server, is there a > way to mitigate the issue? I closed closing the regions manually, but > they went right back to the same server, finally I shutdown RS > process, and that table's regions went in random places around the > cluster, but still its puzzling, anyone had issues like that? > > -Jack > --00032555539e79b848049fa29c6b--