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 9E974D70B for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 13:16:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 91867 invoked by uid 500); 1 Aug 2012 13:16:33 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-hbase-user-archive@hbase.apache.org Received: (qmail 91810 invoked by uid 500); 1 Aug 2012 13:16:33 -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 91801 invoked by uid 99); 1 Aug 2012 13:16:33 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 01 Aug 2012 13:16:33 +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 alex.baranov.v@gmail.com designates 209.85.161.169 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.161.169] (HELO mail-gg0-f169.google.com) (209.85.161.169) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 01 Aug 2012 13:16:26 +0000 Received: by ggm4 with SMTP id 4so8641719ggm.14 for ; Wed, 01 Aug 2012 06:16:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=XkAKFcovKa8G6iu9DTbTJ3KtgSKKvIs9gjOTP1zPCMg=; b=XkKvYo+clEj7Fi+Q6DNy9AmAbMxv9CJ4p94RIzPguTH+FlksdqR2ON2A1Be1thNwXm ReQt+4YCpgJZzBNFbNEtv0sEzUiLZenJalrbwnDk7YEp8gtNwlH0cP95YuuREtZIu/5x u8r1+dyZCw3peenxVIYUDAIVU4V2BZvPc429COp4MHS7sArwn2sKCn30m46wgCIsYuiv qGDb8p1pABHXiu+/uh5DgkqyzAll7MijgMHY3aHX6m+np8eYgyH2Vlz6LT52yBE6f7PL wCO7ZcjhynL27gwFSqvRQC8wJfdwPG8PpEp7PPulGeUmKHw+PNVSCpAm2HkopCZJ9g3B M4Dw== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.50.195.194 with SMTP id ig2mr4060209igc.0.1343826965988; Wed, 01 Aug 2012 06:16:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.50.111.103 with HTTP; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 06:16:05 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 09:16:05 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: sync on writes From: Alex Baranau To: user@hbase.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=14dae9340459f2843e04c6341837 --14dae9340459f2843e04c6341837 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I believe that this is *not default*, but *current* implementation of sync(). I.e. (please correct me if I'm wrong) n-way write approach is not available yet. You might confuse it with the fact that by default, sync() is called on every edit. And you can change it by using "deferred log flushing". Either way, sync() is going to be a pipelined write. There's an explanation of benefits of pipelined and n-way writes there in the book (p337), it's not just about which approach provides better durability of saved edits. Both of them do. But both can take different time to execute and utilize network differently: pipelined *may* be slower but can saturate network bandwidth better. Alex Baranau ------ Sematext :: http://blog.sematext.com/ :: Hadoop - HBase - ElasticSearch - Solr On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 9:09 PM, Mohit Anchlia wrote: > In the HBase book it mentioned that the default behaviour of write is to > call sync on each node before sending replica copies to the nodes in the > pipeline. Is there a reason this was kept default because if data is > getting written on multiple nodes then likelyhood of losing data is really > low since another copy is always there on the replica nodes. Is it ok to > make this sync async and is it advisable? > -- Alex Baranau ------ Sematext :: http://blog.sematext.com/ :: Hadoop - HBase - ElasticSearch - Solr --14dae9340459f2843e04c6341837--