[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-4365?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13101996#comment-13101996
]
Todd Lipcon commented on HBASE-4365:
------------------------------------
bq. Load balancer currently doesn't balance the regions for any single table.
We should introduce a policy that does this.
That seems orthogonal, to me. If you have a single table in the cluster, then
you need at least as many regions as servers to make use of all of your servers.
If you have many tables, then yes, a per-table balancing might be useful (in
some cases), but it's the case regardless of whether we have a split size
heuristic or manually set region size.
bq. It seems that the proposal favors not pre-splitting tables. If so, we need
some solid performance results to back the proposal.
Howso? I'm suggesting that we retain the MAX_REGION_SIZE parameter, if you want
to manually set it to some value, or set it to MAX_LONG and manually split.
But, the default would be this heuristic, which would work well for many use
cases.
> Add a decent heuristic for region size
> --------------------------------------
>
> Key: HBASE-4365
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-4365
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Affects Versions: 0.94.0
> Reporter: Todd Lipcon
>
> A few of us were brainstorming this morning about what the default region
> size should be. There were a few general points made:
> - in some ways it's better to be too-large than too-small, since you can
> always split a table further, but you can't merge regions currently
> - with HFile v2 and multithreaded compactions there are fewer reasons to
> avoid very-large regions (10GB+)
> - for small tables you may want a small region size just so you can
> distribute load better across a cluster
> - for big tables, multi-GB is probably best
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
