Mailing-List: contact user-help@hbase.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: user@hbase.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of stoffe@gmail.com designates
 209.85.220.47 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1392330026.9121.YahooMailNeo@web140604.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
References: 
 <CADSBNAhAjc+0ufeYFpSCUeF8BjJ7R1ySUULRL0=ptj=Qjn8ccA@mail.gmail.com>
	<BLU0-SMTP324A94B1115044E87CF5B0D8F9D0@phx.gbl>
	<CADSBNAjA8P_K+cUWcjz+7=XYxCJKqJwC4tWtpCK3+3nsEhc4dA@mail.gmail.com>
	<1392330026.9121.YahooMailNeo@web140604.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 10:19:33 +0100
Message-ID: 
 <CADSBNAgpc8D135J2uxGMVwV3u0XRYDMOmjpE4cvjZqUscbyZSQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Standard vs Asynchbase client reconnect after HBase restart
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Kristoffer_Sj=F6gren?= <stoffe@gmail.com>
To: user@hbase.apache.org, lars hofhansl <larsh@apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7ba970d2d4162a04f25a4d0d

--047d7ba970d2d4162a04f25a4d0d
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

No worries. Let me do some more tests and analyse the communication between
zookeeper and HBase to make sure its not a localhost/port screwup from my
side.

Ill get back to you.


On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 11:20 PM, lars hofhansl <larsh@apache.org> wrote:

> Haven't found time, yet. :(
>
>
> Are you bouncing just HBase or Zookeeper as well? I found the ZK client t=
o
> be frequently the main source delay for "reconnecting".
> (note also that if run HBase in local mode it will manage ZK for you as
> well, and the ZK port might change upon restart, which the client does no=
t
> handle well)
>
>
> -- Lars
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>  From: Kristoffer Sj=F6gren <stoffe@gmail.com>
> To: user@hbase.apache.org
> Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 11:54 PM
> Subject: Re: Standard vs Asynchbase client reconnect after HBase restart
>
>
> @Ted We are using HBase 0.94.6 from CDH 4 to be exact.
>
> @Lars Thanks a lot!
>
> @Mike Just to be clear - the test is using HConnection [1]
> and HBaseClient [2] which is what I refer to as the 'client'. With
> 'recovered' I mean that the client has gone from 'unresponsive' to being
> able query and insert data into HBase.
>
> 1.
>
> http://hbase.apache.org/0.94/apidocs/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/client/HConn=
ection.html
> 2.
> http://tsunanet.net/~tsuna/asynchbase/api/org/hbase/async/HBaseClient.htm=
l
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 1:11 AM, Michael Segel <michael_segel@hotmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > Silly question...
> > What makes you think that what you are seeing isn't already as fast as
> > possible?
> >
> > You are looking at an async client versus a synchronous client, right?
> >
> > Also... what do you mean when you say 'client recovers' ...
> > How are you measuring that the client has recovered?
> >
> > Thx
> >
> > -Mike
> >
> >
> > On Feb 12, 2014, at 2:41 AM, Kristoffer Sj=F6gren <stoffe@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > I have some tests that check client behaviour during a controlled HBa=
se
> > > restart. Everything works as expected and the client is able to recov=
er
> > > after a while.
> > >
> > > However, after doing the same tests with the Asynchbase I noticed tha=
t
> > 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=3Dtrue
> > > zookeeper.session.timeout=3D5000
> > >
> > > Any tips on how to improve time to recovery?
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > -Kristoffer
> >
> > The opinions expressed here are mine, while they may reflect a cognitiv=
e
> > thought, that is purely accidental.
> > Use at your own risk.
> > Michael Segel
> > michael_segel (AT) hotmail.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

--047d7ba970d2d4162a04f25a4d0d--