hbase-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nick Dimiduk <ndimi...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Stochastic Balancer by tables
Date Thu, 18 Jun 2015 17:07:46 GMT
If you're interested in region size balancing, please have a look at
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-13103 . Please provide feedback
as we're hoping to have an early version available in 1.2.

Which reminds me, I owe Mikhail another review...

On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 9:39 AM, Elliott Clark <eclark@apache.org> wrote:

> The balancer is not responsible fore region size decisions. The balancer is
> only responsible for deciding which regionservers should host which
> regions.
> Splits are determined by data size of a region. See max store file size.
>
> On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 7:50 AM, Nasron Cheong <nasron@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I've noticed there are two settings available when using the HBase
> balancer
> > (specifically the default stochastic balancer)
> >
> > hbase.master.balancer.stochastic.tableSkewCost
> >
> > hbase.master.loadbalance.bytable
> >
> > How do these two settings relate? The documentation indicates when using
> > the stochastic balancer that 'bytable' should be set to false?
> >
> > Our deployment relies on very few, very large tables, and I've noticed
> bad
> > distribution when accessing some of the tables. E.g. there are 443
> regions
> > for a single table, but when doing a MR job over a full scan of the
> table,
> > the first 426 regions scan quickly (minutes), but the remaining 17
> regions
> > take significantly longer (hours)
> >
> > My expectation is to have the balancer equalize the size of the regions
> for
> > each table.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > - Nasron
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message