J-D: If you can briefly point out the code in 0.89 which makes using WAL more reliable, that would be great.
Thanks On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 5:51 PM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <[email protected]>wrote: > Even if HBaseAdmin.flush is made synchronous, that won't get you far > since it's still processed sequentially on the region servers. A > better well-known option is to set hbase.regionserver.hlog.blocksize > to a small number, and if you want high durability you could set that > to 1KB (basically rolling at every new insert). Since this is > incredibly inefficient, a more wide-spread number (and one we used > while we were on 0.20) is 2MB. Set it higher if you have a high insert > rate, or lower if you don't insert very often. > > J-D > > On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 8:36 PM, Ted Yu <[email protected]> wrote: > > We're still using 0.20.6 :-) > > > > On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 5:19 PM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > >> If your Puts are using the WAL, and you are on 0.89, it's already as > >> durable as it can be without forcing flushes. > >> > >> J-D > >> > >> On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 8:07 PM, Ted Yu <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > Hi, > >> > HBaseAdmin.flush() is asynchronous. > >> > In order to achieve high durability, do I have a better choice ? > >> > > >> > Thanks > >> > > >> > > >
