Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Received: from cust-asf.ponee.io (cust-asf.ponee.io [163.172.22.183]) by cust-asf2.ponee.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6039C200C1C for ; Wed, 1 Feb 2017 00:47:51 +0100 (CET) Received: by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) id 5ED62160B5F; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 23:47:51 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id A7D6C160B52 for ; Wed, 1 Feb 2017 00:47:50 +0100 (CET) Received: (qmail 69632 invoked by uid 500); 31 Jan 2017 23:47:48 -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 69621 invoked by uid 99); 31 Jan 2017 23:47:48 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd4-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 23:47:48 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd4-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd4-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id 46505C0096 for ; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 23:47:48 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd4-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.285 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.285 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.972, URI_HEX=1.313] autolearn=disabled Received: from mx1-lw-us.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd4-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.11]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Njk8dSZJXNzQ for ; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 23:47:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mwork.nabble.com (mwork.nabble.com [162.253.133.43]) by mx1-lw-us.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-lw-us.apache.org) with ESMTP id 1C0EE5F4EE for ; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 23:47:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mben.nabble.com (unknown [162.253.133.72]) by mwork.nabble.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63372246D3141 for ; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 16:47:41 -0700 (MST) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 16:47:41 -0700 (MST) From: marjana To: user@hbase.apache.org Message-ID: <1485906461402-4085995.post@n3.nabble.com> In-Reply-To: References: <1485871845646-4085975.post@n3.nabble.com> <1FD35ECE-642A-46E9-91DE-5F4BCBFC16B0@gmail.com> <1485882897889-4085978.post@n3.nabble.com> <1485897596784-4085985.post@n3.nabble.com> <1485903220937-4085993.post@n3.nabble.com> Subject: Re: replication concepts - enabling peer vs enabling table replication MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit archived-at: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 23:47:51 -0000 Will post here. But what puzzles me why it keeps the lag and LogQueue going up when all I did was to add a peer? I had thought it only starts saving logs once I enable replication for some column families. So what happens when I enable_table_replication vs when I add a peer? -- View this message in context: http://apache-hbase.679495.n3.nabble.com/replication-concepts-enabling-peer-vs-enabling-table-replication-tp4085975p4085995.html Sent from the HBase User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.