It should be Ted. Tags will be present in KV(Cell). So whichever part deals with KVs (Cells) can use the tags and do some thing with that. Do some checks in Filter and filter out KVs, or access in CP etc etc.
-Anoop- On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 7:48 PM, Ted Yu <[email protected]> wrote: > Would tags be visible to methods of BaseRegionObserver, other than > AccessController ? > > Meaning, would other (non-secure) components of HBase be able to use cell > tagging to store certain information ? > > Please clarify. > > Thanks > > On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 6:09 AM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > Thanks Ram and Anoop for those details again. I don't think there is a > need > > to be able to revert from V3 to V2. And 1 byte overhead on an HFile is > not > > really an overhead. As Anoop proposed, if there is a way to de-activate > the > > tags feature when all the KVs in a file are having tag length as zero, > then > > it's all good! > > > > Looking forward to test that! > > > > JM > > > > 2013/7/19 ramkrishna vasudevan <[email protected]> > > > > > But am afraid that once the user switches to V3 with tags he cannot > come > > > back to V2. If this scenario is possible then we need to see a work > > around > > > for that? > > > Particularly in the case if the user has written the tags and tries to > > read > > > it back with V2 then it would not work. > > > > > > If user switches to V3 but does not write any tags then if we go with > the > > > option of making tags optional using the Fileinfo then atleast after > the > > > compaction is done the Hfile could be read with the V2 reader also. > But > > i > > > don't think the user would intend to do this given the fact that he > needs > > > tags for his usecase. > > > > > > Regards > > > Ram > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 5:21 PM, Anoop John <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > Jean > > > > When V2 will be used there wont any extra bytes and so no > > > overhead > > > > in write or read paths. > > > > When V3 is used, and there are no tags present at all, we will have > > extra > > > > bytes for writing tag length. Trying to put tag length as VInt so > that > > > > this will be 1 byte only. Then using File infos we can avoid > overhead. > > > > > > > > Say when all the KVs in a file are having tag length as zero( a filer > > > > trailer indicate this) , during read we can avoid the read and decode > > of > > > > teh tag length. Just skip one byte of tag length. > > > > > > > > Regarding avoiding the tag length (even the 1 byte fully) maybe > during > > > > compaction it should be possible. But whether really needed I am > > > thinikng. > > > > User can select V3 when there is a need for Tags. > > > > > > > > -Anoop- > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 4:53 PM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari < > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Thanks Ram. > > > > > > > > > > One last. Space wise. If I understand correctly, between V2 and V3, > > > when > > > > > tags are de-activated, there will be only a 1 bit difference, so > same > > > > > storage space used. If tags are activated but empty, is it going to > > be > > > > the > > > > > same thing? Or are we going to have all the tags overhead? Like can > > we > > > > have > > > > > a byte to say "no tags in that file" in addition to "tags are > > activated > > > > for > > > > > that file"? > > > > > > > > > > So 2 questions. > > > > > > > > > > 1) what the overhead on disk space from the tags. > > > > > 2) should we have a flag(bit) per file to say no tags even if > > activated > > > > to > > > > > limit this overhead and ket people activate it for futur uses? > > > > > > > > > > JMS > > > > > Le 2013-07-19 07:11, "ramkrishna vasudevan" < > > > > > [email protected]> a écrit : > > > > > > > > > > > >>Based on your details, I think it will be, but very minimal, or > > > > > > almost invisible, correct? > > > > > > Yes of course. > > > > > > Regarding migration, any file written with V2 would still be read > > > with > > > > > > HFileReaderV2 and the new files will be written with V3. So > there > > > > should > > > > > > not be any problem here. We are anyway testing these things to > > make > > > > > sure > > > > > > we don't break anywhere. Thanks Jean for the interest. > > > > > > > > > > > > @Stack > > > > > > I would write up on the changes foreseen for the Codec changes to > > > > support > > > > > > RPC and HFileV3. > > > > > > Discussing with Anoop, we have some benefits when the Tags are > > > written > > > > as > > > > > > the byte array and when tags are in memory. Anyway that i would > > > write > > > > up > > > > > > in a seperate thread also considering the inputs on the current > way > > > the > > > > > > patch has been made. > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > Ram > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari < > > > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Like Ted and St.Ack, I read all of this with a great interest > and > > > > > > > everything looked good to me. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My only concern will be performance wise. Even if tags are > > > disabled, > > > > > di > > > > > > > you forsee some performances impacts because everything will > now > > > need > > > > > to > > > > > > be > > > > > > > tag aware? Based on your details, I think it will be, but very > > > > minimal, > > > > > > or > > > > > > > almost invisible, correct? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also, for migrations from v2 to v3, if v3 is activated, that > will > > > be > > > > > > simply > > > > > > > done when HFilea will be written, correct? So not really any > > > > migration > > > > > > > process required? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > JM > > > > > > > Le 2013-07-19 01:13, "Stack" <[email protected]> a écrit : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 10:14 AM, ramkrishna vasudevan < > > > > > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can avoid several problems with HFile V2 internals, and > > > > > backwards > > > > > > > > > compatibility concerns, and allow for working tags support > > with > > > > no > > > > > > > > > performance impact and low risk to all HBase users who do > not > > > > want > > > > > > tag > > > > > > > > > support, while still allowing for inline tags capabilities > > in a > > > > > > > shipping > > > > > > > > > version of HBase, by introducing this in a new V3 version > for > > > > > HFile. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This seems like a good tactic to me. HFileV2 has the current > > KV > > > > > format > > > > > > > > hard-coded all over and trying to 'fix' this would probably > > take > > > a > > > > > > bunch > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > effort and would jeopardize current workings. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We have been working on this and will have a clean patch > > with > > > > good > > > > > > > > amount > > > > > > > > > of testing in time for 0.96. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd think that your moving into a green field by doing an > > hfilev3 > > > > > would > > > > > > > > make it so your work could run independent of 0.96 timeline; > > i.e. > > > > it > > > > > > > could > > > > > > > > come in post 0.96? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What sort of changes do you foresee necessary in core to > > support > > > > cell > > > > > > > > codecs? Between rpc and hfilev3? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Ram, > > > > > > > > St.Ack > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
