On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 9:11 AM, Michael Segel <[email protected]> wrote:
> Todd, > > You said: > "As far as I'm aware, this has been a very common deployment strategy at > Google for close to a decade, for applications that do not require strict > consistency.” > > And for those applications that do? (Require ‘strict' consistency) > http://www.cidrdb.org/cidr2011/Papers/CIDR11_Paper32.pdf https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/osdi12/osdi12-final-16.pdf > And the overhead of running your scans in parallel? > The Tail at Scale paper I referenced above cites a 2-3% overhead in wasted work, in exchange for an order of magnitude better latency tails and availability. > How many of Cloudera’s customers are running clusters that are at FB, > Google or Yahoo! scale? > We don't comment on customer cluster sizes. That said, cross-cluster client failover is a reasonable technique regardless of size. Do smaller clusters not care about MTTR or latency tails? > Sometime you need a voice of reason like Aaron Kimball’s. ;-) > Bizarre reference. Sure, I like Aaron too? Not sure how he fits into this discussion. > > Again… you really need to think this through before putting finger to > keyboard. > > Now if you’re talking about a client being able to manage multiple cluster > connections… that’s a different story and that’s not what Ted was > suggesting. > Oh and I want to be clear. I think that Ted’s thinking about potential > problems is a good thing. I’m suggesting that there be a bit more thought > about it before you actually try to tackle it as a worthy problem. > > And to also be clear. > I’m saying its not a good idea, not for *my* applications, but that I’m > thinking in terms of a general concept. If you look at the solution, > applications that do not require strict consistency is a growing smaller > subset of applications. > Its not to say that you can’t find a use case, but in terms of a general > approach, it fails for a large subset of use cases, and can cause confusion > when someone tries to use it for a use case where you do have a consistency > issue and you don’t understand why your result sets don’t match. > I don't think Ted's saying this is a general approach that would replace the standard HBase client. If you're using it for a case requiring strong consistency, you're using it wrong. Same could be said for Cassandra or any number of other eventually consistent stores, but they seem to have plenty of successful customers. Anyway, I'll leave this thread, seems like you aren't interested in a technical discussion. -Todd > > > > > On Jun 30, 2015, at 8:46 AM, Todd Lipcon <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Michael-- the experiences of Google before us and many Cassandra users > > indicate that there are many valid use cases for multi-datacenter clients > > such as the one Ted has built. > > > > Go read the Tail at Scale paper from CACM for an example of how a multi > > cluster client can drop tail latencies by an order of magnitude. As far > as > > I'm aware, this has been a very common deployment strategy at Google for > > close to a decade, for applications that do not require strict > consistency. > > > > It's certainly valid and constructive to point out downsides and > > limitations of the design, and explain why it might not work for your > > applications. Perhaps you need something closer to megastore. But > claiming > > that all applications look just like your applications, in the presence > of > > evidence to the contrary, doesn't benefit anyone. > > > > Todd > > On Jun 30, 2015 8:37 AM, "Michael Segel" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> Guys, > >> > >> You really don’t want to do this. (Fault tolerant across a single > cluster > >> pair…) > >> > >> What I didn’t say in my other email is that you’re not being specific as > >> to what constitutes a failure. Read: How does your client know that > you’ve > >> lost a connection to its primary client? > >> > >> What you might as well do is to create a load balancing server that will > >> then manage the connection to one of N clusters in your replication > group. > >> And even then you’ll want to make this redundant. > >> Really? > >> > >> How often do you have a problem with your client connection? > >> > >> If so… get a new HBase Admin or switch to MapRDB because you have a > >> stability problem… > >> > >> > >> In terms of a generic client who wants to manage multiple connections… > >> yeah, that’s a pretty straight forward problem to solve. > >> But keep in mind that your cluster isn’t across multiple data centers > but > >> that you have multiple clusters. > >> > >> Of course… maybe you’re all on a single cluster and you’re using slider > … > >> ;-) > >> > >> Again, please think before you pound code. > >> > >> > >> But hey! What do I know? I don’t own my IP :-( > >> > >> ;-P > >> > >>> On Jun 30, 2015, at 6:24 AM, Ted Malaska <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> Cool Let me know. If we appeal HBase.MCC correctly maybe we can hit > two > >>> birds with one stone. At least the client part. It would be nice to > >> have > >>> a client that was configurable and in the core that would support use > >> cases > >>> like this. > >>> > >>> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 9:18 AM, ramkrishna vasudevan < > >>> [email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Thanks Ted. > >>>> > >>>> Ya as you said the idea is to solve a bigger use case where there is a > >>>> globally distributed cluster but the data is local to each cluster - > ie. > >>>> the data that we write and read is local to that geography or cluster. > >> The > >>>> cross site Big table will help you to read and write from such a > cluster > >>>> transparently just by differentiating them with a cluster id. > >>>> > >>>> But the other subset of the problem that HBase.MCC solves can also be > >>>> achieved because the failover switching during writes/reads happens > >> based > >>>> on the replication setup that is available in that local cluster. > >>>> > >>>> The state of CSBT - I need to know the latest update but it was > earlier > >>>> discussed that CSBT cannot be part of the hbase-package but as a stand > >>>> alone tool. I can get the update on that. > >>>> > >>>> Regards > >>>> Ram > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 5:05 PM, Ted Malaska < > [email protected]> > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Hey Ramkrishna, > >>>>> > >>>>> I think your right that are some things that are the same. The > >>>> difference > >>>>> is the problem they are trying to solve and the scope. > >>>>> > >>>>> In the HBase.MCC design it is only about cluster fail over and > keeping > >>>> 100% > >>>>> up time in the case of single site failure. The Cross-site Big Table > >>>> looks > >>>>> to have some of that too, but also it is more complex because it has > >> the > >>>>> requirement of data being local to a single cluster. So you need to > >> see > >>>>> all the clusters to get all the data. > >>>>> > >>>>> May be I'm wrong by they are not solving for the same problem. Also > >>>>> because of the HBase.MCC limited scope it is far easier to implement > >> and > >>>>> maintain. > >>>>> > >>>>> Now all through I agree that the Cross site Big Table has a valid use > >>>>> case. The use case for HBase.MCC is to more set an equal the ground > >> with > >>>>> Cassandra in the market place. To allow us to have eventual > >> consistency > >>>> in > >>>>> the case of single site failure. With configs to determine what > >>>> thresholds > >>>>> must be pasted before exciting those eventual consistency records. > >>>>> > >>>>> This will allow HBase to better compete for use cases that involve > Near > >>>>> Real Time Streaming. This is important because this is the new hot > >> trend > >>>>> in the market today to move your batch to near real time. I think > >> HBase > >>>> is > >>>>> the best solution out there today for this but for the fake that at > >> site > >>>> or > >>>>> region server failure we loss functionality. (Read and Write on site > >>>>> failure, and write on RS failure) > >>>>> > >>>>> In the end HBase.MCC's scope is what hopefully should make it > exciting. > >>>>> All we need to do is make a new client and update the connection > >> factory > >>>> to > >>>>> give you that multi cluster client when requested through the > configs. > >>>> No > >>>>> updates to ZK or HBase core would have to be touched. > >>>>> > >>>>> Side note: Because of the flexibility in the HBase.MCC configs there > >> is a > >>>>> way to reach a good majority of the Cross-site BigTable goals with > just > >>>>> HBase.MCC. > >>>>> Last question: What became of Cross-site BigTable? > >>>>> > >>>>> Let me know if you find this correct. > >>>>> Thanks > >>>>> Ted Malaska > >>>>> > >>>>> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 12:42 AM, ramkrishna vasudevan < > >>>>> [email protected]> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Hi Ted > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I think the idea here is very similar to the Cross-site Big Table > >>>> project > >>>>>> that was presented in HBaseCon 2014. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Pls find the slide linke below > >>>>>> http://www.slideshare.net/HBaseCon/ecosystem-session-3. > >>>>>> This project also adds a client side wrappers so that the client can > >>>>>> internally do a failover in case of a cluster going down and > >>>>> automatically > >>>>>> switching over to the replicated clusters based on the > configurations. > >>>>> Let > >>>>>> us know if you find this interesting. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Regards > >>>>>> Ram > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 4:01 AM, Ted Malaska < > >> [email protected] > >>>>> > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> lol I did sorry, this is the right doc > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >> > https://github.com/tmalaska/HBase.MCC/blob/master/MultiHBaseClientDesignDoc.docx.pdf > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 6:30 PM, Andrew Purtell < > [email protected] > >>>>> > >>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I think you may have put up the wrong document? That link goes to > >>>>>> product > >>>>>>>> doc. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 3:24 PM, Ted Malaska < > >>>>> [email protected] > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Here is the PDF link. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >> > https://github.com/tmalaska/HBase.MCC/blob/master/MultiClusterAndEDH_Latest.docx.pdf > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 6:09 PM, Sean Busbey < > >>>> [email protected]> > >>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Michael, > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> This is the dev list, no sound-bite pitch is needed. We have > >>>>> plenty > >>>>>>> of > >>>>>>>>>> features that take time to explain the nuance. Please either > >>>>> engage > >>>>>>>> with > >>>>>>>>>> the complexity of the topic or wait for the feature to land and > >>>>> get > >>>>>>>>>> user-accessible documentation. We all get busy from time to > >>>> time, > >>>>>> but > >>>>>>>>>> that's no reason to push a higher burden on those who are > >>>>> currently > >>>>>>>>> engaged > >>>>>>>>>> with a particular effort, especially this early in development. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> That said, the first paragraph gives a suitable brief > >>>> motivation > >>>>>>>>> (slightly > >>>>>>>>>> rephrased below): > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Some applications require response and availability SLAs > >>>> that a > >>>>>>>> single > >>>>>>>>>> HBase cluster can not meet alone. Particularly for > >>>>>>>>>>> high percentiles, queries to a single cluster can be delayed > >>>> by > >>>>>>> e.g. > >>>>>>>> GC > >>>>>>>>>> pauses, individual server process failure, or maintenance > >>>>>>>>>>> activity. By providing clients with a transparent > >>>> multi-cluster > >>>>>>>>>> configuration option we can avoid these outlier conditions by > >>>>>>>>>>> mask these failures from applications that are tolerant to > >>>>> weaker > >>>>>>>>>> consistency guarantees than HBase provides out of the box. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Ted, > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Thanks for writing this up! We'd prefer to keep discussion of > >>>> it > >>>>> on > >>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>> mailing list, so please avoid moving to private webex's. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Would you mind if I or one of the other community members > >>>>> converted > >>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>> design doc to pdf so that it's more accessible? > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 4:52 PM, Ted Malaska < > >>>>>>> [email protected] > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Why don't we set up a webex to talk out the detail. What > >>>> times > >>>>>> r u > >>>>>>>>> open > >>>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>>> talk this week. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> But to answer your questions. This is for active active and > >>>>>> active > >>>>>>>>>>> failover clusters. There is a primary and n number of fail > >>>>> overs > >>>>>>> per > >>>>>>>>>>> client. This is for gets and puts. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> There r a number of configs in the doc to define how to > >>>>> failover. > >>>>>>>> The > >>>>>>>>>>> options allow a couple different use cases. There is a lot > >>>> of > >>>>>>> detail > >>>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>>>> the doc and I just didn't want to put it all in the email. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> But honestly I put a lot of time in the doc. I would love > >>>> to > >>>>>> know > >>>>>>>>> what > >>>>>>>>>> u > >>>>>>>>>>> think. > >>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 29, 2015 5:46 PM, "Michael Segel" < > >>>>>>> [email protected]> > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Ted, > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> If you can’t do a 30 second pitch, then its not worth the > >>>>>> effort. > >>>>>>>> ;-) > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Look, when someone says that they want to have a single > >>>>> client > >>>>>>> talk > >>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>>>> multiple HBase clusters, that could mean two very different > >>>>>>> things. > >>>>>>>>>>>> First, you could mean that you want a single client to > >>>>> connect > >>>>>> to > >>>>>>>> an > >>>>>>>>>>>> active/active pair of HBase clusters where they replicate > >>>> to > >>>>>> each > >>>>>>>>>> other. > >>>>>>>>>>>> (Active / Passive would also be implied, but then you have > >>>>> the > >>>>>>>> issue > >>>>>>>>> of > >>>>>>>>>>>> when does the passive cluster go active? ) > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Then you have the issue of someone wanting to talk to > >>>>> multiple > >>>>>>>>>> different > >>>>>>>>>>>> clusters so that they can query the data, create local data > >>>>>> sets > >>>>>>>>> which > >>>>>>>>>>> they > >>>>>>>>>>>> wish to join, combining data from various sources. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> The second is a different problem from the first. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> -Mike > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 29, 2015, at 3:38 PM, Ted Malaska < > >>>>>>>> [email protected] > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hey Michael, > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Read the doc please. It goes through everything at a low > >>>>>>> level. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Ted Malaska > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 4:36 PM, Michael Segel < > >>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> No down time? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you want a client to go against a pair of > >>>> active/active > >>>>>>> hbase > >>>>>>>>>>>> instances > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> on tied clusters? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 29, 2015, at 3:20 PM, Ted Malaska < > >>>>>>>>> [email protected] > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hey Michael, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The use case is simple "No down time use cases" even in > >>>>> the > >>>>>>>> case > >>>>>>>>> of > >>>>>>>>>>>> site > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failure. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now on this statement > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Why not simply manage each connection/context via a > >>>>>> threaded > >>>>>>>>>> child?" > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is the point, to make that simple, tested, easy, > >>>> and > >>>>>>>>>> transparent > >>>>>>>>>>>> for > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HBase users. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ted Malaska > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Michael Segel < > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So if I understand your goal, you want a client who > >>>> can > >>>>>>>> connect > >>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>>> one > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> or > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more hbase clusters at the same time… > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ok, so lets walk through the use case and help me > >>>>>>> understand a > >>>>>>>>>>> couple > >>>>>>>>>>>> of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use cases for this… > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why not simply manage each connection/context via a > >>>>>> threaded > >>>>>>>>>> child? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 29, 2015, at 1:48 PM, Ted Malaska < > >>>>>>>>>> [email protected] > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hey Dev List, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My name is Ted Malaska, long time lover and user of > >>>>>> HBase. > >>>>>>> I > >>>>>>>>>> would > >>>>>>>>>>>> like > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discuss adding in a multi-cluster client into HBase. > >>>>> Here > >>>>>>> is > >>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>> link > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> for > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the design doc ( > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >> > https://github.com/tmalaska/HBase.MCC/blob/master/MultiHBaseClientDesignDoc.docx%20(1).docx > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but I have pulled some parts into this main e-mail to > >>>>>> give > >>>>>>>> you > >>>>>>>>> a > >>>>>>>>>>> high > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> level > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding of it's scope. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Goals* > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The proposed solution is a multi-cluster HBase client > >>>>>> that > >>>>>>>>> relies > >>>>>>>>>>> on > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> existing HBase Replication functionality to provide > >>>> an > >>>>>>>> eventual > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consistent > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> solution in cases of primary cluster down time. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > https://github.com/tmalaska/HBase.MCC/blob/master/FailoverImage.png > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Additional goals are: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Be able to switch between single HBase clusters to > >>>>>>>> Multi-HBase > >>>>>>>>>>> Client > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with limited or no code changes. This means using > >>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HConnectionManager, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Connection, and Table interfaces to hide complexities > >>>>>> from > >>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> developer > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Connection and Table are the new classes for > >>>>>> HConnection, > >>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HTableInterface in HBase version 0.99). > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Offer thresholds to allow developers to decide > >>>> between > >>>>>>>> degrees > >>>>>>>>> of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> strongly consistent and eventually consistent. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Support N number of linked HBase Clusters > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Read-Replicas* > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also note this is in alinement with Read-Replicas and > >>>>> can > >>>>>>>> work > >>>>>>>>>> with > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This client is multi-cluster where Read-Replicas help > >>>>> us > >>>>>> to > >>>>>>>> be > >>>>>>>>>>> multi > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Region > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Server. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Replication* > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You will also see in the document that this works > >>>> with > >>>>>>>> current > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> replication > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and requires no changes to it. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Only a Client change* > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You will also see in the doc this is only a new > >>>> client. > >>>>>>> Which > >>>>>>>>>> means > >>>>>>>>>>>> no > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> extra code for the end developer, only addition > >>>> configs > >>>>>> to > >>>>>>>> set > >>>>>>>>> it > >>>>>>>>>>> up. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Github* > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is a github project that shows that this works > >>>> at: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/tmalaska/HBase.MCC > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note this is only a prototype. When adding it to > >>>> HBase > >>>>> we > >>>>>>>> will > >>>>>>>>>> use > >>>>>>>>>>> it > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> as > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> starting point but there will be changes. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Initial Results:* > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Red is where our primary cluster has failed and you > >>>>> will > >>>>>>> see > >>>>>>>>> from > >>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bottom to graphs that our puts, deletes, and gets are > >>>>> not > >>>>>>>>>>>> interrupted. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >> > https://github.com/tmalaska/HBase.MCC/blob/master/AveragePutTimeWithMultiRestartsAndShutDowns.png > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ted Malaska > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The opinions expressed here are mine, while they may > >>>>>>> reflect a > >>>>>>>>>>>> cognitive > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thought, that is purely accidental. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Use at your own risk. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael Segel > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> michael_segel (AT) hotmail.com > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The opinions expressed here are mine, while they may > >>>>>> reflect a > >>>>>>>>>>> cognitive > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> thought, that is purely accidental. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Use at your own risk. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael Segel > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> michael_segel (AT) hotmail.com > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> The opinions expressed here are mine, while they may > >>>> reflect > >>>>> a > >>>>>>>>>> cognitive > >>>>>>>>>>>> thought, that is purely accidental. > >>>>>>>>>>>> Use at your own risk. > >>>>>>>>>>>> Michael Segel > >>>>>>>>>>>> michael_segel (AT) hotmail.com > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>>> Sean > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>> Best regards, > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> - Andy > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - > Piet > >>>>>> Hein > >>>>>>>> (via Tom White) > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >> > >> The opinions expressed here are mine, while they may reflect a cognitive > >> thought, that is purely accidental. > >> Use at your own risk. > >> Michael Segel > >> michael_segel (AT) hotmail.com > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > The opinions expressed here are mine, while they may reflect a cognitive > thought, that is purely accidental. > Use at your own risk. > Michael Segel > michael_segel (AT) hotmail.com > > > > > > -- Todd Lipcon Software Engineer, Cloudera
