When filling the release note, I found that I'd better do some works on master first, such as removing the deprecated methods in Table interface, so the release note will be clean. And also I seem to forget changing the javadoc for some methods in the Admin interface since their behavior have been changed, for example, Admin.split will return after the split is done, and in the past it will return immediately after master received the request.
Let me finish these things first. 张铎(Duo Zhang) <palomino...@gmail.com> 于2019年6月15日周六 上午8:32写道： > HBASE-22577 is almost there. But I think I still need one more +1 here so > I can merge HBASE-21512 back... > > 张铎(Duo Zhang) <palomino...@gmail.com> 于2019年6月14日周五 下午4:54写道： > >> After applying HBASE-22577 the performance is good enough now. And the >> YCSB workloada also shows that there are no big differences on performance. >> Please see the comments on HBASE-22564 for more details. >> >> Will get HBASE-22577 in soon, and resolve the pending issues such >> as HBASE-22237. >> >> Any other concerns? Thanks. >> >> 张铎(Duo Zhang) <palomino...@gmail.com> 于2019年6月14日周五 上午11:27写道： >> >>> It’s hadoop-2.8.5. >>> >>> But I do not think it makes much difference, we just use the same server >>> setup, only different clients implementation. >>> >>> Sakthi <sakthivel.azh...@gmail.com>于2019年6月14日 周五10:18写道： >>> >>>> Duo, >>>> >>>> What version on Hadoop did you use in the 5 node cluster for your >>>> comparisons? For what it's worth, I would also like to try out the >>>> PE/LTT >>>> comparison of both the clients. Or, if any other form of comparison >>>> would >>>> be helpful then I'm open for suggestions and would like to give it a >>>> try. >>>> >>>> Sakthi >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 4:55 PM 张铎(Duo Zhang) <palomino...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> > It will be transparent, mostly, the interface is still kept. There >>>> are some >>>> > incompatible behaviors, for example, now admin.split will wait till >>>> the >>>> > split is actually done, while in the old time it will return >>>> immediately >>>> > after we send the request to master. >>>> > >>>> > Jean-Marc Spaggiari <jean-m...@spaggiari.org>于2019年6月13日 周四23:26写道： >>>> > >>>> > > Hi, >>>> > > >>>> > > Is this going to change the way the client should be called? Or it >>>> will >>>> > be >>>> > > mostly transparent replacement? >>>> > > >>>> > > Thanks, >>>> > > >>>> > > JMS >>>> > > >>>> > > Le jeu. 13 juin 2019 à 02:13, 张铎(Duo Zhang) <palomino...@gmail.com> >>>> a >>>> > > écrit : >>>> > > >>>> > > > Josh Elser <els...@apache.org> 于2019年6月12日周三 下午10:00写道： >>>> > > > >>>> > > > > Nice perf results! >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-22237 looks like >>>> it's >>>> > also >>>> > > > > good to be resolved, given >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > >>>> > >>>> https://builds.apache.org/job/HBASE%20Nightly/job/HBASE-21512/279/testReport/ >>>> > > > > (TestLogLevel will be fixed on your rebase/merge). >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > Poking through the PR, it looks like the big change is that >>>> we're >>>> > also >>>> > > > > defaulting over to use the [sync]ConnectionOverAsyncConnection. >>>> Good >>>> > to >>>> > > > > do it now to help iron things out more. Calling it out to make >>>> sure >>>> > > > > others see this. Is it still possible to use the old Connection >>>> impl? >>>> > > (I >>>> > > > > think the answer is "no"). >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > No, all the code have been purged... >>>> > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > Only other question: are there updates for the book that should >>>> > happen >>>> > > > > before you move past this? What about "knobs" for configuring >>>> > retries, >>>> > > > > internal thread pool(s)? Anything like that you think would be >>>> > > important >>>> > > > > for people to tweak? >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > Will fill a 'fat' release note soon. I think there will be less >>>> > > parameters >>>> > > > to tune, as we do not need any thread pools unless you are using >>>> > > > coprocessor related methods(which are deprecated and we recommend >>>> users >>>> > > to >>>> > > > use the ones in async client interface). The retry config is >>>> still the >>>> > > same >>>> > > > with the old sync client. >>>> > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > +1 >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > On 6/11/19 5:48 AM, 张铎(Duo Zhang) wrote: >>>> > > > > > Filed https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-22564 >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > 张铎(Duo Zhang) <palomino...@gmail.com> 于2019年6月11日周二 下午3:53写道： >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > >> Let me do a YCSB test about the performance. >>>> > > > > >> >>>> > > > > >> Stack <st...@duboce.net> 于2019年6月11日周二 下午1:15写道： >>>> > > > > >> >>>> > > > > >>> +1 on merge from me. >>>> > > > > >>> >>>> > > > > >>> It removes the complicated multi-threaded edifice we'd built >>>> > > > > client-side >>>> > > > > >>> to >>>> > > > > >>> fake an async behavior replacing it with an actual async >>>> > > > > implementation. >>>> > > > > >>> Users will immediately notice a radical plummet in working >>>> thread >>>> > > > > count on >>>> > > > > >>> the client side. >>>> > > > > >>> >>>> > > > > >>> For the cleanup of old idioms alone, in test code in >>>> particular, >>>> > > the >>>> > > > > patch >>>> > > > > >>> is worth merging. >>>> > > > > >>> >>>> > > > > >>> Any perf numbers to share comparing old sync and async? >>>> > > > > >>> >>>> > > > > >>> What about difference in operation? Is there any commentary >>>> or >>>> > doc >>>> > > or >>>> > > > > >>> release note to point at? >>>> > > > > >>> >>>> > > > > >>> Thanks, >>>> > > > > >>> S >>>> > > > > >>> >>>> > > > > >>> >>>> > > > > >>> >>>> > > > > >>> On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 6:59 PM 张铎(Duo Zhang) < >>>> > > palomino...@gmail.com >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>> wrote: >>>> > > > > >>> >>>> > > > > >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21512 >>>> > > > > >>>> >>>> > > > > >>>> "Reimplement sync client based on async client" >>>> > > > > >>>> >>>> > > > > >>>> The jira title tells everything. This is what I promised >>>> when I >>>> > > > first >>>> > > > > >>>> introduced the async client in HBase, about three years >>>> ago, >>>> > that >>>> > > > the >>>> > > > > >>> sync >>>> > > > > >>>> client can be implemented on top of the async client, so >>>> we can >>>> > > > remove >>>> > > > > >>> the >>>> > > > > >>>> old sync client implementation, which can reduce our >>>> client code >>>> > > > base >>>> > > > > a >>>> > > > > >>>> lot. >>>> > > > > >>>> >>>> > > > > >>>> I've already opened a PR here, and received several >>>> > > feedback(thanks >>>> > > > > >>> stack!) >>>> > > > > >>>> >>>> > > > > >>>> https://github.com/apache/hbase/pull/287 >>>> > > > > >>>> >>>> > > > > >>>> It shows that we add 8,663 lines and remove 31,386 lines. >>>> > > > > >>>> >>>> > > > > >>>> This is the flaky dashboard for this branch >>>> > > > > >>>> >>>> > > > > >>>> >>>> > > > > >>>> >>>> > > > > >>> >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > >>>> > >>>> https://builds.apache.org/job/HBASE-Find-Flaky-Tests/job/HBASE-21512/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/dashboard.html >>>> > > > > >>>> >>>> > > > > >>>> With the recent efforts I think it is getting better. >>>> > > > > >>>> >>>> > > > > >>>> Will fill the release note soon, it will be a fat one. >>>> > > > > >>>> >>>> > > > > >>>> Please vote >>>> > > > > >>>> >>>> > > > > >>>> [] +1 >>>> > > > > >>>> [] +0/-0 >>>> > > > > >>>> [] -1 Do not merge the branch back because ... >>>> > > > > >>>> >>>> > > > > >>>> Thanks. Any suggestions are welcomed. >>>> > > > > >>>> >>>> > > > > >>> >>>> > > > > >> >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > >>>> > >>>> >>>
