On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 10:44 PM, Stack <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Gary Helmling <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >> Do you folks run the meta-carrying-master form G? > > Pardon me. I missed a paragraph. I see you folks do deploy this form. St.Ack
> St.Ack > > > > > >> >> >> > > > >> > > Is this just because meta had a dedicated server? >> > > >> > > >> > I'm sure that having dedicated resources for meta helps. But I don't >> think >> > that's sufficient. The key is that master writes to meta are local, and >> do >> > not have to contend with the user requests to meta. >> > >> > It seems premature to be discussing dropping a working implementation >> which >> > eliminates painful parts of distributed consensus, until we have a >> complete >> > working alternative to evaluate. Until then, why are we looking at >> > features that are in use and work well? >> > >> > >> > >> 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 that's a necessary test for proving out the new AM implementation. >> But remember that we are comparing a feature which is actively supporting >> production workloads with a line of active development. I think there >> should also be additional testing around situations of high meta load and >> end-to-end assignment latency. >> > >
