hbase-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Anoop Sam John <anoo...@huawei.com>
Subject RE: Coprocessor / threading model
Date Wed, 16 Jan 2013 04:39:55 GMT
Thanks Andrew. A detailed and useful reply.... Nothing more needed to explain the anti pattern..

From: Andrew Purtell [apurtell@apache.org]
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 12:50 AM
To: user@hbase.apache.org
Subject: Re: Coprocessor / threading model

HTable is a blocking interface. When a client issues a put, for example, we
do not want to return until we can confirm the store has been durably
persisted. For client convenience many additional details of remote region
invocation are hidden, for example META table lookups for relocated
regions, reconnection, retries. Just about all coprocessor upcalls for the
Observer interface happen with the RPC handler context. RPC handlers are
drawn from a fixed pool of threads. Your CP code is tying up one of a fixed
resource for as long as it has control. And in here you are running the
complex HTable machinery. For many reasons your method call on HTable may
block (potentially for a long time) and therefore the RPC handler your
invocation is executing within will also block. An accidental cycle can
cause a deadlock once there are no free handlers somewhere, which will
happen as part of normal operation when the cluster is loaded, and the
higher the load the more likely.

Instead you can do what Anoop has described in this thread and install a CP
into the master that insures index regions are assigned to the same
regionserver as the primary table, and then call from a region of the
primary table into a colocated region of the index table, or vice versa,
bypassing HTable and the RPC stack. This is just making an in process
method call on one object from another.

Or, you could allocate a small executor pool for cross region RPC. When the
upcall into your CP happens, dispatch work to the executor and return
immediately to release the RPC worker thread back to the pool. This would
avoid the possibility of deadlock but this may not give you the semantics
you want because that background work could lag unpredictably.

On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 10:44 AM, Wei Tan <wtan@us.ibm.com> wrote:

> Andrew, could you explain more, why doing cross-table operation is an
> anti-pattern of using CP?
> Durability might be an issue, as far as I understand. Thanks,
> Best Regards,
> Wei

Best regards,

   - Andy

Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
(via Tom White)
View raw message