Ok, Let me sink this RC, and spin another quick one containing HBASE-11604. Will do tomorrow.
Should I wait for HBASE-11967? Enis On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 11:04 PM, Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> wrote: > I agree it would be surprising to have masters running RegionServers and > hosting regions. Maybe we can take that kind of departure for 2.0? (Or even > 1.1?) It's not clear what state that will end up in. Default-on features in > 1.0 should carry forward and promote stability and familiarity? > > > > On Sep 11, 2014, at 10:02 AM, Stack <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Thanks for doing the helpful writeup Enis. It helps doing evaluation. > > > > I have one question below. > > > > On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 1:56 AM, Enis Söztutar <[email protected]> wrote: > > ... > > > >> > >> Starting with 0.99.0, the HBase master server and backup master servers > >> will > >> also act as a region server. RPC port and info port for web UI is shared > >> for > >> the master and region server roles. Active master will be hosting the > meta > >> table (and other hbase system tables, acl and namespace) by default > >> (unless configured otherwise). The master and backup masters will not be > >> hosting user level regions. See HBASE-10569 and HBASE-11604 for more > >> details. > > > > I think we should change this so this is NOT the default in 1.0. What do > > folks think? The new deploy topology will surprise going from earlier > > version. Better folks enable it explicitly*? > > St.Ack > > > > * I used to be in favor of this feature being on by default but I have > > since changed my mind given how I see meta hosting evolving in the > > near-future. >
