> I do not think these two features can be done in 3.0. Fine.. I was just asking as we said cloud readiness. Fully agree to the concern. Might be good for 4.0
Agree to other items in the list. Ya lets try to stabilize the Compacting Memstore feature. Am ready to help in that area. Anoop On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 11:05 PM Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> wrote: > Also +1 for ccsmap and this could even be useful and of reasonable risk to > be backported to a 1.6.0 (if we ever make one) > > On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 9:20 AM 张洸豪 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > +1 for ccsmap. > > For in memory flush/compaction, @ZhengH tested it once. The gc time > > reduced a lot and p99/p999 is small and stable. We will try it on our > > cluster. So I thought this feature may be production ready in HBase 2.3 > or > > 2.4? > > Another problem is about scalability. Now we have one production cluster > > which have thousands tables and hundreds of thousands regions. There are > > more than 50000 Qps to meta region. We have to disable client prefetch to > > reduce the pressure of meta. So we should reconsider to enable more than > > one meta region for HBase 3.0. > > > > > > > > ---Original--- > > From: "Sean Busbey"<[email protected]> > > Date: Mon, May 6, 2019 21:06 PM > > To: "dev"<[email protected]>; > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] HBase 3 > > > > > > I agree with Duo, neither of those is close to done enough for 3.0. > > > > On Mon, May 6, 2019, 06:48 张铎(Duo Zhang) <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I do not think these two features can be done in 3.0... > > > > > > Anoop John <[email protected]>于2019年5月6日 周一14:48写道： > > > > > > > For the cloud usages, we should include the new FS abstraction issue > > also > > > > targeted ? What abt the WAL on Ratis? We can fix the features what > we > > > > would like to see in 3.0 and then have feature freeze. So that 3.0 > wont > > > > become so huge changes. > > > > > > > > Anoop > > > > > > > > On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 9:52 AM Yu Li <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > TL;DR: Maybe firstly we should figure out what direction we should > > > focus > > > > > for 3.0? It seems to me current performance is good enough for most > > use > > > > > case and no longer a big concern, so more requirements are about > > > > stability > > > > > and elasticity (in cloud)? Or if anyone do have performance > concern, > > > > please > > > > > shout and let us know, thanks. > > > > > > > > > > All below items are performance oriented, just list out for > reference > > > > (and > > > > > not sure about priority from community perspective): > > > > > 1. CCSMap (HBASE-20312) (delayed due to job priority, sorry, but we > > > could > > > > > get it done if required). > > > > > 2. Maybe we should also target at making in-memory-flush/compaction > > > from > > > > > experimental to production ready? > > > > > 3. Server-side asynchronous (especially the write pipeline) is > > another > > > > > left-over job I ever promised to upstream but failed because the > > > business > > > > > growth on my side slows down quite a bit so it's not fully verified > > > > online > > > > > yet. > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards, > > > > > Yu > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 6 May 2019 at 06:07, Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Definitely there is value in starting this so trunk doesn't sink > > > into a > > > > > > difficult to release state. Alpha releases seem fine if you want > to > > > > make > > > > > > them. This assumes you'll have at least a small amount of > bandwidth > > > to > > > > > run > > > > > > tests and triage any issues, though, or else any effort would be > > > better > > > > > > spent completing the work needed to move the stable pointer to > 2.x. > > > > Just > > > > > my > > > > > > random advice. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 7:55 AM Sean Busbey <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi folks! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We're about a year from when HBase 2.0.0 went GA. I'd like to > > start > > > > > > > cutting alpha releases of 3.0.0 off of the master branch soon. > > > > > > > (expressly I do not want to create another branch, so for now > > > > anything > > > > > > > landing in master would be "in" for 3.0.0. hence the "alpha" > > > > > > > designation.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I was going to wait for one of the HBase 2 releases to get the > > > stable > > > > > > > label. But lately I don't have a good sense of if that will > > happen > > > > > > > within a month or within six months, so I'm leaning away from > > > > waiting. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I personally don't have a particular feature I'm trying to get > > out > > > > the > > > > > > > door. I just think we're at risk of another waiting-too-long > for > > a > > > > > > > major release and want to get started on the work of > quantifying > > > > > > > what's changed and figuring out how downstream projects are > > > impacted. > > > > > > > I find that all much easier to do when there's a release > artifact > > > to > > > > > > > reference. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm happy to just cut alpha releases until someone shows up > with > > a > > > > > > > specific feature need. At that point we can come up with > criteria > > > for > > > > > > > entering and exiting beta releases. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What do folks plan to work on getting ready that needs happen > in > > a > > > > > > > major release? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > Andrew > > > > > > > > > > > > Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from > > > truth's > > > > > > decrepit hands > > > > > > - A23, Crosstalk > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Best regards, > Andrew > > Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from truth's > decrepit hands > - A23, Crosstalk >
