From user-return-53332-apmail-hbase-user-archive=hbase.apache.org@hbase.apache.org Tue Feb 28 23:07:16 2017 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 EC6E519B86 for ; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 23:07:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 53290 invoked by uid 500); 28 Feb 2017 23:07:15 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-hbase-user-archive@hbase.apache.org Received: (qmail 53207 invoked by uid 500); 28 Feb 2017 23:07:15 -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 53195 invoked by uid 99); 28 Feb 2017 23:07:14 -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, 28 Feb 2017 23:07:14 +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 5D339C05B0 for ; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 23:07:14 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd4-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.38 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.38 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=disabled Authentication-Results: spamd4-us-west.apache.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=hubspot.com Received: from mx1-lw-eu.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd4-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.11]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2yMYN-8yzRYf for ; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 23:07:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-it0-f48.google.com (mail-it0-f48.google.com [209.85.214.48]) by mx1-lw-eu.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-lw-eu.apache.org) with ESMTPS id CBDC85F2C5 for ; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 23:07:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-it0-f48.google.com with SMTP id 203so19860638ith.0 for ; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 15:07:11 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hubspot.com; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=XctZRCvdjpDzrhfkxa89Ea9cfovHLvL/6Kci59Rx424=; b=bY2HvyAzmARQECtNeI/FFvY6x/ST+gfkWzbEkBbypcNgQAtWun6dDQ671PPxkLnr7o dasgLj7jWX3sYUd7z69/zZK9iWoE+8dPU/b7TgnpwIbq1zvKR5nxPmAST3F03NY7L+9Y Iu9An+UJ9Kv0/IgVJGfm35M1W7vb5Rc8J5fi8= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=XctZRCvdjpDzrhfkxa89Ea9cfovHLvL/6Kci59Rx424=; b=uevcuJkXiR2dUpo/XEJUQZ2VRa4rSru5xxP+FCdkx1eG/P2XeKpf9FqXhVoWb/v81T 58hU0F63F4VVkrbF2CmNyt0BEBRtBumjWiTQholiLGkc9XxxHLt+65ievnhlR1EZomAS nmE3Js+ZHHJ1BF+4ySA8XaDHqM9KAM6g6t9TbwAab8XxHz3gGrIYUuPu6lagolOAzHKz B4k8yrNMYvLWiszA/4nvX8rsVFWMjWfLVoOB3xZP3zvaXJaxL/gDeKSstLO+T9VEjoQh 8KkYlLbo4FSu0ULcAzo1SYlkT/8fcVMmISKpTJ/wNNTaUTAsrQ4whMIuJ2u6w8jpUdap ZYVQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39nR/sG/GIZMDJ69FecgE4eQCwFP8G+usz+6toon9l/ytxVf38LxGmMcJcz20Wf9XGo5KGfstLX6YGt1WO0s X-Received: by 10.36.103.9 with SMTP id u9mr1203290itc.91.1488323228238; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 15:07:08 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.79.117.27 with HTTP; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 15:07:07 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: James Moore Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 18:07:07 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Pre-emptive Fast Fail not used for scanners? To: user@hbase.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114ac8fe54bb6205499f416e --001a114ac8fe54bb6205499f416e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Hey Ted, Unfortunately, that change triggers NPEs in the client. I tracked down the source of the NPE as the ScannerCallableWithReplicas not extending RegionServerCallable as ScannerCallable does. I'm running some additional tests now but should have an update shortly. On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 2:29 PM, Ted Yu wrote: > Seems to be a bug. > > Mind trying out this change ? > > http://pastebin.com/qim48Se9 > > Thanks > > On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 11:06 AM, James Moore wrote: > > > The value is true, and I've been able to verify FastFail behavior when > > using Gets when I added a few logging statements into the > RPCRetryingCaller > > I noticed that on scans the interceptor for scans only was > > NoOpRetryableCallerInterceptor > > rather than a PreemptiveFastFailInterceptor. > > > > the basic testing code is > > > > Scan s = new Scan(); > > > s.addColumn(Bytes.toBytes("0"),Bytes.toBytes("cq1")); > > > //multi.add(s); > > > ResultScanner scanner = table.getScanner(s); > > > scanner.next(); > > > scanner.close(); > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Ted Yu wrote: > > > > > What's the value for "hbase.client.fast.fail.mode.enabled" ? > > > > > > The default value is false. > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 9:36 AM, James Moore > > wrote: > > > > > > > We're considering rolling out Pre-Emptive Fast fail to replace a > > > homegrown > > > > solution based on Hystrix for fast failing requests. However in > > testing, > > > it > > > > appears that scanners use the NoOpRetryableCallerInterceptor rather > > than > > > > the configured fast fail interceptor. Is it intentional that Scanner > > > calls > > > > don't use FastFail? > > > > > > > > thanks! > > > > > > > > --James > > > > > > > > > > --001a114ac8fe54bb6205499f416e--