incubator-accumulo-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From John Vines <john.w.vi...@ugov.gov>
Subject Re: Suspension
Date Wed, 15 Feb 2012 15:31:45 GMT
That sounds to hacky. Why not just have a Config option for whether zk
timeouts are heeded?
On Feb 15, 2012 10:26 AM, "Adam Fuchs" <adam.p.fuchs@ugov.gov> wrote:

> I think this makes a lot of sense. I use Accumulo enough on a laptop to be
> annoyed at how often I have to run start-all.sh.
>
> One way we could do this is to have a separate daemon process restart
> accumulo processes anytime they go down. I think log recovery is almost as
> efficient as any other way of suspending memory to disk, and it doesn't add
> any extra complexity to the code base. The only other concern is having the
> daemon restart a process that should actually be down, and we would have to
> work out the model for that.
>
> Adam
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 9:54 AM, Aaron Cordova <aaron@cordovas.org> wrote:
>
>> EC2 as well as laptop users would be interested in making Accumulo
>> 'suspendable'. The self-monitoring features end up killing off processes
>> upon awakening. Perhaps this could be implemented by a simple switch that
>> tells Accumulo not to worry about abandoning processes that don't report,
>> that can be enabled before suspension and disabled after .. or simply left
>> enabled for stand-alone laptop users.
>>
>> Does it make sense to make it possible to suspend a running Accumulo
>> instance, or should this simply be discouraged and made well known?
>>
>>
>

Mime
View raw message