Thanks Ted, I've submitted https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-8157.
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Bryan:
> Interesting idea.
>
> You can log a JIRA with the following two suggestions.
>
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Bryan Beaudreault <
> bbeaudrea...@hubspot.com> wrote:
>
> > I was thinking something like this:
> >
> > Scan scan = new Scan(startRow, endRow);
> >
> > scan.setCaching(someVal); // based on what we expect most rows to take
> for
> > processing time
> >
> > ResultScanner scanner = table.getScanner(scan);
> >
> > for (Result r : scanner) {
> >
> > // usual processing, the time for which we accounted for in our caching
> > and global lease timeout settings
> >
> > if (someCondition) {
> >
> > // More time-intensive processing necessary on this record, which is
> > hard to account for in the caching
> >
> > scanner.progress();
> >
> > }
> >
> > }
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > I'm not sure how we could expose this in the context of a hadoop job,
> since
> > I don't believe we have access to the underlying scanner, but that would
> be
> > great also.
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 1:11 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > bq. if HBase provided a way to manually refresh a lease similar to
> > > Hadoop's context.progress()
> > >
> > > Can you outline how the above works for long scan ?
> > >
> > > bq. Even being able to override the timeout on a per-scan basis would
> be
> > > nice.
> > >
> > > Agreed.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 10:05 AM, Bryan Beaudreault <
> > > bbeaudrea...@hubspot.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Typically it is better to use caching and batch size to limit the
> > number
> > > of
> > > > rows returned and thus the amount of processing required between
> calls
> > to
> > > > next() during a scan, but it would be nice if HBase provided a way to
> > > > manually refresh a lease similar to Hadoop's context.progress(). In
> a
> > > > cluster that is used for many different applications, upping the
> global
> > > > lease timeout is a heavy handed solution. Even being able to
> override
> > > the
> > > > timeout on a per-scan basis would be nice.
> > > >
> > > > Thoughts on that, Ted?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 1:00 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > In 0.94, there is only one setting.
> > > > > See release notes of HBASE-6170 which is in 0.95
> > > > >
> > > > > Looks like this should help (in 0.95):
> > > > >
> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-2214
> > > > > Do HBASE-1996 -- setting size to return in scan rather than count
> of
> > > rows
> > > > > -- properly
> > > > >
> > > > > From your description, you should be able to raise the timeout
> since
> > > the
> > > > > writes are relatively fast.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cheers
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 9:32 AM, Dan Crosta <d...@magnetic.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I'm confused -- I only see one setting in CDH manager, what is
> the
> > > name
> > > > > of
> > > > > > the other setting?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Our load is moderately frequent small writes (in batches of 1000
> > > cells
> > > > at
> > > > > > a time, typically split over a few hundred rows -- these complete
> > > very
> > > > > > fast, we haven't seen any timeouts there), and infrequent batches
> > of
> > > > > large
> > > > > > reads (scans), which is where we do see timeouts. My guess is
> that
> > > the
> > > > > > timeout is more due to our application taking some time --
> > apparently
> > > > > more
> > > > > > than 60s -- to process the results of each scan's output, rather
> > than
> > > > due
> > > > > > to slowness in HBase itself, which tends to be only moderately
> > loaded
> > > > > > (judging by CPU, network, and disk) while we do the reads.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > - Dan
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mar 17, 2013, at 2:20 PM, Ted Yu wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > The lease timeout is used by row locking too.
> > > > > > > That's the reason behind splitting the setting into two config
> > > > > > parameters.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > How is your load composition ? Do you mostly serve reads from
> > > HBase ?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Cheers
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Dan Crosta <d...@magnetic.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> Ah, thanks Ted -- I was wondering what that setting was for.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> We are using CDH 4.2.0, which is HBase 0.94.2 (give or take a
> > few
> > > > > > >> backports from 0.94.3).
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Is there any harm in setting the lease timeout to something
> > > larger,
> > > > > > like 5
> > > > > > >> or 10 minutes?
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Thanks,
> > > > > > >> - Dan
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> On Mar 17, 2013, at 1:46 PM, Ted Yu wrote:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>> Which HBase version are you using ?
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> In 0.94 and prior, the config param is
> > > > > hbase.regionserver.lease.period
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> In 0.95, it is different. See release notes of HBASE-6170
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Dan Crosta <
> d...@magnetic.com
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>> We occasionally get scanner timeout errors such as "66698ms
> > > passed
> > > > > > since
> > > > > > >>>> the last invocation, timeout is currently set to 60000" when
> > > > > > iterating a
> > > > > > >>>> scanner through the Thrift API. Is there any reason not to
> > raise
> > > > the
> > > > > > >>>> timeout to something larger than the default 60s? Put
> another
> > > way,
> > > > > > what
> > > > > > >>>> resources (and how much of them) does a scanner take up on a
> > > > thrift
> > > > > > >> server
> > > > > > >>>> or region server?
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> Also, to confirm -- I believe "hbase.rpc.timeout" is the
> > setting
> > > > in
> > > > > > >>>> question here, but someone please correct me if I'm wrong.
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> Thanks,
> > > > > > >>>> - Dan
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
