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 40F5B10CBD for ; Tue, 4 Jun 2013 23:34:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 72264 invoked by uid 500); 4 Jun 2013 23:34:38 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-hbase-user-archive@hbase.apache.org Received: (qmail 72218 invoked by uid 500); 4 Jun 2013 23:34:38 -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 72210 invoked by uid 99); 4 Jun 2013 23:34:38 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 04 Jun 2013 23:34:38 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of saint.ack@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.44 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.214.44] (HELO mail-bk0-f44.google.com) (209.85.214.44) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 04 Jun 2013 23:34:31 +0000 Received: by mail-bk0-f44.google.com with SMTP id r7so502924bkg.17 for ; Tue, 04 Jun 2013 16:34:11 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=FuXrHlA6eFvzRLkzfNs6g2QIQrviC8tEqu3lroCtdFY=; b=rYiXKeqTNe5iDtj/YLXdbFX5E+qFjBFg/qA2Wetnfp1es+5wbQHkcgNFdohIeAvWdT kzApEVb1mE05ci75g0sWcichKuJMlosqTOHZlpAodRB0oWbfjsf/hCdVJmSNJYqaMEaH dm5EMwVmQJtZ2xhc58KzQ3MENNLu3M5wbMD/fdlvgErF/qIixZ3dj08UDFwCr6Vwtid6 S0OPMKAse8LsrPvNMFdQL1gXMiqrm8muJ/avdNgk+Y9W7q9O4znD5/DjMfoK009+2ErZ cNcMPVXFCH5DFChvNRSOaiBH6ecD02euFhwI9gYKNnA8nJ0vIZHxhvhM9NeNYDOZqJdv naVQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.204.58.10 with SMTP id e10mr8745881bkh.145.1370388851090; Tue, 04 Jun 2013 16:34:11 -0700 (PDT) Sender: saint.ack@gmail.com Received: by 10.204.37.134 with HTTP; Tue, 4 Jun 2013 16:34:10 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 01:34:10 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: GbkGHt4v2qcT0ymYPIXZKZKGAy4 Message-ID: Subject: Re: RPC Replication Compression From: Stack To: Hbase-User Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c350a6aca50804de5c84cd X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --001a11c350a6aca50804de5c84cd Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 6:48 PM, Jean-Daniel Cryans wrote: > Replication doesn't need to know about compression at the RPC level so > it won't refer to it and as far as I can tell you need to set > compression only on the master cluster and the slave will figure it > out. > > Looking at the code tho, I'm not sure it works the same way it used to > work before everything went protobuf. I would give 2 internets to > whoever tests 0.95.1 with RPC compression turned on and compares > results with non-compressed RPC. See > http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#rpc.configs What are you looking for JD? Faster replication or just less network used? Looks like we have not had the ability to do compressed rpc before (We almost did, the original rpc compression attempt almost got committed to trunk -- see HBASE-5355 and the referenced follow-on issue -- but was put aside after the pb stuff went in). St.Ack --001a11c350a6aca50804de5c84cd--