On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 11:05 PM, Enis Söztutar <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ok, > > Let me sink this RC, and spin another quick one containing HBASE-11604. > Will do tomorrow. > > You don't want to just fix in a 0.99.1? > Should I wait for HBASE-11967? > I'd say no. Non-critical. Takes some work to repro. We've had this problem always it seems. St.Ack > 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. > > >
