There was a jira a while back (can't remember the number) that I think came from the Facebook fellas to have multiple hbase-site.xmls, with a naming scheme such that you can do layering of configurations.
What ever happened to that? ------------------- Jesse Yates @jesse_yates jyates.github.com On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Andrew Purtell <[email protected]>wrote: > Making it the default seems reasonable. > > For <= 0.94, the security profile has a separate hbase-site.xml file > under test resources where there it could be defaulted as off. Reason > is the local block sharing requires some shared group membership > between HBase and HDFS service accounts that might be objectionable in > a secure setting. So we should have test coverage with it off. > > On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 9:42 AM, n keywal <[email protected]> wrote: > > It's all in the "pretty much" :-) > > Should we make it the default (i.e. recommending it in the doc, emitting > a > > warning if it's not set) for all installation ? > > Or would it make sense to separate the store and wal cases, meaning that > we > > need a change in hdfs to make this possible? > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 6:30 PM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > >> On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 7:58 AM, n keywal <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > Hi, > >> > > >> > Is there any known counter indication for read short circuit? > >> > I had a look at JD's presentation from January. It was tested vs. > HBase > >> as > >> > a whole; and still recommended for nearly all cases. > >> > >> Pretty much. > >> > >> > > >> > We could make it at least the default when reading HLog files (even > if it > >> > seems it's a 'per client" config, there is may be something to look > at as > >> > well)? > >> > >> You have to add 2 configs in hdfs-site.xml, which we can't do from > HBase. > >> > >> J-D > >> > > > > -- > Best regards, > > - Andy > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet > Hein (via Tom White) >
