Gary has a JIRA HBASE-16025 which would reduce the load on server hosting hbase:meta.
FYI > On Nov 16, 2016, at 2:13 AM, Yu Li <[email protected]> wrote: > > Very late to the party +1 (Smile) > > We also offline discussed standalone meta server here in Alibaba since > we've observed crazily high QPS on meta caused by online machine learning > workload, and in the discussion we also mentioned pros. and cons. of > serving meta on HMaster. Since quite some pros. already mentioned in the > thread, I'd like to mention one cons. here: currently we could switch > active master (almost) freely w/o affecting online service, so we could do > some hot-fix on master. But if we carry meta region on HMaster, the cost of > switching master will increase a lot and the hot-switch may not be possible > any more. Not sure whether this is an important thing for most users but > still a point to share (Smile). > > And maybe another point for discussion: if not placed on HMaster, should we > have a standalone meta server or at least provide such an option? > > Thanks. > > Best Regards, > Yu > > On 16 November 2016 at 03:43, <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> In the absence of more information, intuition says master carries meta >> to avoid a whole class of problems. >> Off-hand I think the class of problems we'll eliminate are problems that >> are well understood and being constantly dealt with and hardened to this >> day (ie puts to a region). >>> I think we have to evaluate whether the new pv2 master works with >> remote meta updates and the fact that those updates can fail partially or >> succeed without theI think failing meta updates need to be dealt with >> either way AFAIK eventually procedure state will be stored in HDFS which is >> also a distributed system. >> >> >> >> On Saturday, November 12, 2016 9:45 AM, Andrew Purtell < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> Thanks Stack and Enis. I concur, it's hard to say for those not intimate >> with the new code. >> >> In the absence of more information, intuition says master carries meta to >> avoid a whole class of problems. >> >>> On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 3:27 PM, Enis Söztutar <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Thanks Stack for reviving this. >>> >>> How to move forward here? The Pv2 master is almost done. An ITBLL bakeoff >>>> of new Pv2 based assign vs a Master that exclusively hosts hbase:meta? >>> I think we have to evaluate whether the new pv2 master works with remote >>> meta >>> updates and the fact that those updates can fail partially or succeed >>> without the >>> client getting the reply, etc. Sorry it has been some time I've looked at >>> the design. >>> Actually what would be very good is to have a design overview / write up >> of >>> the pv2 >>> in its current / final form so that we can evaluate. Last time I've >> looked >>> there was no >>> detailed design doc at all. >>> >>> >>>> St.Ack >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Best regards, >> >> - Andy >> >> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein >> (via Tom White) >> >> >>
