hbase-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From lars hofhansl <la...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Standard vs Asynchbase client reconnect after HBase restart
Date Wed, 12 Feb 2014 17:28:56 GMT
fail.fast.expired.active.master is a server side option with no bearing on client side behavior.

I'll have a look into this today.



________________________________
 From: Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com>
To: "user@hbase.apache.org" <user@hbase.apache.org> 
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 8:08 AM
Subject: Re: Standard vs Asynchbase client reconnect after HBase restart
 

HBASE-9468 introduced "fail.fast.expired.active.master" and went into
0.94.12

I assume x >= 12 in your case.

Cheers



On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 8:03 AM, Kristoffer Sjögren <stoffe@gmail.com>wrote:

> 0.94.x
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 4:39 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Are you using 0.94.x or 0.96.y ?
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 12:41 AM, Kristoffer Sjögren <stoffe@gmail.com
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > I have some tests that check client behaviour during a controlled HBase
> > > restart. Everything works as expected and the client is able to recover
> > > after a while.
> > >
> > > However, after doing the same tests with the Asynchbase I noticed that
> > this
> > > client recovers almost instantly after HBase comes back up - whereas
> the
> > > standard HConnection recovers much later (around 30 seconds).
> > >
> > > I played around with two properties without much time to recovery
> > > reduction.
> > >
> > > fail.fast.expired.active.master=true
> > > zookeeper.session.timeout=5000
> > >
> > > Any tips on how to improve time to recovery?
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > -Kristoffer
> > >
> >
>
Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message