On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 8:18 PM, Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> wrote:
> Is there an option with a pure Java fallback if the native codec isn't > available? I mean something reasonable, not bzip2. > > > Yeah, what Andrew says... S > > On Dec 19, 2017, at 6:16 PM, Dave Latham <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > What about LZ4 instead? Most benchmarks I've seen show it ahead of > Snappy. > > > >> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 5:55 PM, Mike Drob <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> Can you file a JIRA for some kind of magical default > snappy-if-available? > >> > >>> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 7:38 PM, Stack <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>>> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 4:22 PM, Stack <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Thanks for jumping in JMS. Ok on the by-table. > >>>> > >>>> SNAPPY license seems fine. We'd enable it as default when you create a > >>>> table? Let me play w/ it. > >>>> > >>>> > >>> Oh. I forgot what happens if the native lib is not available, how > cluster > >>> goes down. > >>> > >>> Caused by: java.lang.RuntimeException: native snappy library not > >> available: > >>> this version of libhadoop was built without snappy support. > >>> > >>> I think we should skip out on enabling this (but recommend folks run > this > >>> way...) > >>> > >>> Thanks JMS, > >>> S > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> Anything else from your experience that we should change JMS? > >>>> > >>>> Thanks sir, > >>>> S > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 1:47 PM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari < > >>>> [email protected]> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Can we get all tables by default Snappy compressed? I think because > of > >>> the > >>>>> license we can not, right? Just asking, in case there is an option > for > >>>>> that... Also +1 on balancing by table... > >>>>> > >>>>> 2017-12-18 17:34 GMT-05:00 Stack <[email protected]>: > >>>>> > >>>>>> (I thought I'd already posted a DISCUSSION on defaults for 2.0.0 but > >>>>> can't > >>>>>> find it...) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Dear All: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I'm trying to get some eyeballs/thoughts on changes you'd like seen > >> in > >>>>>> hbase defaults for hbase-2.0.0. We have a an ISSUE and some good > >>>>> discussion > >>>>>> already up at HBASE-19148. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> A good case is being made for enabling balancing by table as > >> default. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Guanghao Zhang has already put in place more sensible retry/timeout > >>>>>> numbers. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Anything else we should change? Shout here or up on the issue. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>> S > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> >
