[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-3360?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15858891#comment-15858891
]
William Yang commented on PHOENIX-3360:
---------------------------------------
bq. What's the problem facing by setting the RPC class at RS level instead of
region level?
Considering the replication requests, when slave cluster is handling
replication requests, slave RSs will send RPC to other RSs in the same cluster.
If we set an RS level RPC config, then all replication requests will be handled
by the index handlers in those RSs instead of the normal handlers.
Usually, a slave cluster is not just a slave, it may also be active for user
requests. For example, cluster A is master, B is the slave, and a table T1 is
replicated from A to B. Clients' daily access will be handled by A. Then, we
may create some phoenix tables on B without replication because the load of
cluster B is relatively low. For users of these phoenix tables, they will
access cluster B directly. This is not an active-active mode, but cluster B is
both slave and 'master' here. Moreover, in an active-active mode, this is a
problem that must be solved.
Using the slave cluster as a normal cluster might not be standard, but leaving
the slave cluster in a low load is also a waste.
bq. With William Yang's patch the short-circuit write optimization will not
work because the connection created is not a coprocessor connection.
What is the 'short-circuit write optimization', by the way?
> Secondary index configuration is wrong
> --------------------------------------
>
> Key: PHOENIX-3360
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-3360
> Project: Phoenix
> Issue Type: Bug
> Reporter: Enis Soztutar
> Assignee: Rajeshbabu Chintaguntla
> Priority: Critical
> Fix For: 4.10.0
>
> Attachments: PHOENIX-3360.patch, PHOENIX-3360-v2.PATCH
>
>
> IndexRpcScheduler allocates some handler threads and uses a higher priority
> for RPCs. The corresponding IndexRpcController is not used by default as it
> is, but used through ServerRpcControllerFactory that we configure from Ambari
> by default which sets the priority of the outgoing RPCs to either metadata
> priority, or the index priority.
> However, after reading code of IndexRpcController / ServerRpcController it
> seems that the IndexRPCController DOES NOT look at whether the outgoing RPC
> is for an Index table or not. It just sets ALL rpc priorities to be the index
> priority. The intention seems to be the case that ONLY on servers, we
> configure ServerRpcControllerFactory, and with clients we NEVER configure
> ServerRpcControllerFactory, but instead use ClientRpcControllerFactory. We
> configure ServerRpcControllerFactory from Ambari, which in affect makes it so
> that ALL rpcs from Phoenix are only handled by the index handlers by default.
> It means all deadlock cases are still there.
> The documentation in https://phoenix.apache.org/secondary_indexing.html is
> also wrong in this sense. It does not talk about server side / client side.
> Plus this way of configuring different values is not how HBase configuration
> is deployed. We cannot have the configuration show the
> ServerRpcControllerFactory even only for server nodes, because the clients
> running on those nodes will also see the wrong values.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.15#6346)
