[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-1017?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12711199#action_12711199
]
Evgeny Ryabitskiy commented on HBASE-1017:
------------------------------------------
thx for revising my patch!
* patch regenerated, ^Ms. removed
* yes, getLoadToServers changed from public to default visibility
* added more detailed doc for Load balancer
yes, my fault..... sory :(
While removing ServerManager refactor I forgot about several necessary changes
there (that is why I started that refactor)
ServerManager changes:
* getAverageLoad returns accurate avg load (without round as it was before)
* clean up garbage in loadToServers mapping (if there no servers with such
load, then there no record with such load key). before there was record for
every old load with empty (size ==0) servers value.
First one need for more accurate balancing, second is because new LoadBalance
maintains on loadToServers mapping and garbage from old loads making this
logic to do wrong decisions
now it should work in HBASE-1017_v12_FINAL.patch
> Region balancing does not bring newly added node within acceptable range
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HBASE-1017
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-1017
> Project: Hadoop HBase
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Affects Versions: 0.19.0
> Reporter: Jonathan Gray
> Assignee: Evgeny Ryabitskiy
> Priority: Minor
> Fix For: 0.20.0
>
> Attachments: HBASE-1017_v1.patch, HBASE-1017_v10.patch,
> HBASE-1017_v11_FINAL.patch, HBASE-1017_v12_FINAL.patch, HBASE-1017_v2.patch,
> HBASE-1017_v4.patch, HBASE-1017_v5.patch, HBASE-1017_v6.patch,
> HBASE-1017_v7.patch, HBASE-1017_v8.patch, HBASE-1017_v9.patch,
> loadbalance2.0.patch
>
>
> With a 10 node cluster, there were only 9 online nodes. With about 215 total
> regions, each of the 9 had around 24 regions (average load is 24). Slop is
> 10% so 22 to 26 is the acceptable range.
> Starting up the 10th node, master log showed:
> {code}
> 2008-11-21 15:57:51,521 INFO org.apache.hadoop.hbase.master.ServerManager:
> Received start message from: 72.34.249.210:60020
> 2008-11-21 15:57:53,351 DEBUG org.apache.hadoop.hbase.master.RegionManager:
> Server 72.34.249.219:60020 is overloaded. Server load: 25 avg: 22.0, slop: 0.1
> 2008-11-21 15:57:53,351 DEBUG org.apache.hadoop.hbase.master.RegionManager:
> Choosing to reassign 3 regions. mostLoadedRegions has 10 regions in it.
> 2008-11-21 15:57:53,351 DEBUG org.apache.hadoop.hbase.master.RegionManager:
> Going to close region streamitems,^...@^@^...@^@^AH�;,1225411051632
> 2008-11-21 15:57:53,351 DEBUG org.apache.hadoop.hbase.master.RegionManager:
> Going to close region streamitems,^...@^@^...@^@^...@�Ý,1225411056686
> 2008-11-21 15:57:53,351 DEBUG org.apache.hadoop.hbase.master.RegionManager:
> Going to close region groups,,1222913580957
> 2008-11-21 15:57:53,975 DEBUG org.apache.hadoop.hbase.master.RegionManager:
> Server 72.34.249.213:60020 is overloaded. Server load: 25 avg: 22.0, slop: 0.1
> 2008-11-21 15:57:53,975 DEBUG org.apache.hadoop.hbase.master.RegionManager:
> Choosing to reassign 3 regions. mostLoadedRegions has 10 regions in it.
> 2008-11-21 15:57:53,976 DEBUG org.apache.hadoop.hbase.master.RegionManager:
> Going to close region upgrade,,1226892014784
> 2008-11-21 15:57:53,976 DEBUG org.apache.hadoop.hbase.master.RegionManager:
> Going to close region streamitems,^...@^@^...@^@^...@3^z�,1225411056701
> 2008-11-21 15:57:53,976 DEBUG org.apache.hadoop.hbase.master.RegionManager:
> Going to close region streamitems,^...@^@^...@^@^@ ^L,1225411049042
> {code}
> The new regionserver received only 6 regions. This happened because when the
> 10th came in, average load dropped to 22. This caused two servers with 25
> regions (acceptable when avg was 24 but not now) to reassign 3 of their
> regions each to bring them back down to the average. Unfortunately all other
> regions remained within the 10% slop (20 to 24) so they were not overloaded
> and thus did not reassign off any regions. It was only chance that made even
> 6 of the regions get reassigned as there could have been exactly 24 on each
> server, in which case none would have been assigned to the new node.
> This will behave worse on larger clusters when adding a new node has little
> impact on the avg load/server.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
