Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-hbase-user-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-hbase-user-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 902B29099 for ; Sun, 22 Jul 2012 18:37:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 57133 invoked by uid 500); 22 Jul 2012 18:37:04 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-hbase-user-archive@hbase.apache.org Received: (qmail 57085 invoked by uid 500); 22 Jul 2012 18:37:04 -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 57077 invoked by uid 99); 22 Jul 2012 18:37:04 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 22 Jul 2012 18:37:04 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=5.0 tests=FSL_RCVD_USER,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of lakkarsu@gmail.com designates 209.85.217.169 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.217.169] (HELO mail-lb0-f169.google.com) (209.85.217.169) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 22 Jul 2012 18:36:56 +0000 Received: by lbjn8 with SMTP id n8so9040973lbj.14 for ; Sun, 22 Jul 2012 11:36:36 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=/q4Mh5LuQEyCycaLXuFQSVPUYyPecoYEdIu0TAdGJN8=; b=IlScixDeGp4DcJ5eCstbjNJQw2LuAX6PL5i//6S8jSm/yIPoNxr3lpeq0hPVceB4WH DXUd2Qv2trmGXqFmOo2A9XUS0h99W0eZSUdcpl5MR0lo5SMScBtPnRffaBmetfNQF3wg fE2nclddLY3ujFZ5uD3ffVGUUrGCRo9fvgN+EtcLRxo5oNcoqgSkFs+areAlIUUi9tG6 A9oxGqnxolw+/+d2inCYeSv/3uzZ+1WnHyvmwjRBOpWYiBLICe6X+eIy3MMFSD2zYbrt uG+/yA4gfP0xsGOiyPVAt9pYyWbRZSv1iG9CWZgbmV9ycxMD7ujhl2dta45QC/5DZyQJ 2nJQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.112.10.198 with SMTP id k6mr6423299lbb.83.1342982196008; Sun, 22 Jul 2012 11:36:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.17.7 with HTTP; Sun, 22 Jul 2012 11:36:35 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2012 14:36:35 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: hbase HFile v1 size limit From: Sateesh Lakkarsu To: user@hbase.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e0cb4efe3502bb98e604c56f681a --e0cb4efe3502bb98e604c56f681a Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 "For the 0.90.x codebase, the upper-bound of regionsize is about 4Gb, with a default of 256Mb. For 0.92.x codebase, due to the HFile v2 change much larger regionsizes can be supported (e.g., 20Gb)." ... from http://hbase.apache.org/book.html ... Unfortunately, I cannot upgrade to 0.92.x/cdh4 right away and have limited hardware for some time, so want to understand the reasoning behind the HFile limit in v1 so that I can weigh my options. (make use of bigger region size, increase number of regions/regionserver, wait for more nodes and spread) - why is the limit 4GB in 0.90.x? - if it is a hard limit... would like to hear experiences from people about: -- what is the normal region size? -- has anyone been running with 3-4G region sizes. I do understand compactions will take longer, index size can be big depending on key size, read performance can be impacted, may be region splitting will be a problem... what else should I be worried about? I have pre-split regions with known bounds, lots of RAM on each node (96G), no swap, controlled compactions, no MR on this etc... so I believe I have optimal set-up. Thanks. --e0cb4efe3502bb98e604c56f681a--