IIRC the FB guys concluded the reverse, that it's better to provision Thrift endpoints as a tier separate from RegionServers, so there can be caching there, so the thrift servers in the RS don't bottleneck, etc.
On Saturday, December 8, 2012, lars hofhansl wrote: > It's quite a useful experiment, though, standing up separate thrift > servers adds more complexity to a deployment. > > If it is really abandoned we should just rip it out, no? Otherwise I'd > think at least in principle that is useful (also considering potential > future enhancement that we do knowing the thrift server is in process with > the RegionServer). > > -- Lars > > > > ________________________________ > From: Stack <[email protected] <javascript:;>> > To: HBase Dev List <[email protected] <javascript:;>> > Sent: Friday, December 7, 2012 3:16 PM > Subject: Re: thrift vs thrift2 > > On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Luke Lu <[email protected] <javascript:;>> > wrote: > > > The embeded HRegionThriftServer should be ported to thrift2 before we > > deprecate thrift1. FB's (and potentially others) c++ client requires > > HRegionThriftServer. > > > > HRTS is an abandoned experiment as I understand it so I closed HBASE-7302, > the issue that would perpetuate it in thrift2. > St.Ack -- Best regards, - Andy Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein (via Tom White)
