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 ACF7410AA6 for ; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 21:05:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 34795 invoked by uid 500); 20 Jun 2013 21:05:30 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-hbase-user-archive@hbase.apache.org Received: (qmail 34745 invoked by uid 500); 20 Jun 2013 21:05:30 -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 34735 invoked by uid 99); 20 Jun 2013 21:05:30 -0000 Received: from minotaur.apache.org (HELO minotaur.apache.org) (140.211.11.9) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 21:05:30 +0000 Received: from localhost (HELO mail-vb0-f51.google.com) (127.0.0.1) (smtp-auth username apurtell, mechanism plain) by minotaur.apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 21:05:30 +0000 Received: by mail-vb0-f51.google.com with SMTP id x17so5114683vbf.10 for ; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 14:05:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=n9lA1zD8sPN/kw1GFP2zQ7j9PG8Bey7EgK9SO6jrutI=; b=FmTgl+FzNse4CqDiG08v3ipF7ZxPbsPNMbq4UDjcrOSI3bTHXh+JLuiEtV4IMAWvDn Yg+/fWKZHoUtZ98xeZDWaYuCNEQwE7GXqZQWeooyMBxckiCzQXuo170js43ynIfa9pr1 pL75CvKOOpcgIuKmK/NXklksoeAZwAt56ZP1gAaswi4m79+gGlRpEF+S7FW7I7itdyym coo6KJwO3X2Y4rWanAayAj17qesQpNFoQBdyJTa9DgCwZT+odU81J/yWK3HF38j3TsGS CA8mq7Et0xhXBNqAdxosx8+gGUPlzb/eGv5TL3oNzXF0VCbBOAayj2+yIT2LIktS9Lk+ LVEw== X-Received: by 10.58.164.39 with SMTP id yn7mr4167258veb.29.1371762329413; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 14:05:29 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.59.7.138 with HTTP; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 14:04:49 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Andrew Purtell Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 14:04:49 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Is HBASE-6222 still active? To: "user@hbase.apache.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b6762b65c76ab04df9c4e32 --047d7b6762b65c76ab04df9c4e32 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Encryption is HBASE-7544. You mean per cell ACLs right? HBASE-6222 is still active. I'm maintaining a patch that provides it via a "shadow CF" but the consensus seems to be wait for a different implementation option underway based on KeyValue tags, because experiments have shown that will perform better. See the PDF on 6222 for more detail. Tags are actively being worked on by our Ram, with some help from Anoop. On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 11:10 AM, Michael Segel wrote: > > > Is Cell level encryption still a desired trait? > > > -- Best regards, - Andy Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein (via Tom White) --047d7b6762b65c76ab04df9c4e32--