I've been doing HBase for a long time and never had an issue with region count limits and I have clusters with 10s of billions of records. Many there would be issues around a couple Trillion records, but never got that high yet.
Ted Malaska On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 2:24 PM, Josh Elser <josh.el...@gmail.com> wrote: > Oh, one other thing that I should mention (was prompted off-list). > > (definition time since cross-list now: HBase regions == Accumulo tablets) > > Accumulo will handle many more regions than HBase does now due to a > splittable metadata table. While I was told this was a very long and > arduous journey to implement correctly (WRT splitting, merges and bulk > loading), users with "too many regions" problems are extremely few and far > between for Accumulo. > > I was very happy to see effort/design being put into this in HBase. And, > just to be fair in criticism/praises, HBase does appear to me to do > assignments of regions much faster than Accumulo does on a small cluster > (~5-10 nodes). Accumulo may take a few seconds to notice and reassign > tablets. I have yet to notice this with HBase (which also could be due to > lack of personal testing). > > > Jerry He wrote: > >> Hi, folks >> >> We have people that are evaluating HBase vs Accumulo. >> Security is an important factor. >> >> But I think after the Cell security was added in HBase, there is no more >> real gap compared to Accumulo. >> >> I know we have both HBase and Accumulo experts on this list. >> Could someone shred more light? >> I am looking for real gap comparing HBase to Accumulo if there is any so >> that I can be prepared to address them. This is not limited to the >> security >> area. >> >> There are differences in some features and implementations. But they don't >> see like real 'gaps'. >> >> Any comments and feedbacks are welcome. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Jerry >> >>
