[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-4441?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13108066#comment-13108066
]
Andrew Purtell commented on HBASE-4441:
---------------------------------------
bq. Do we want to support different priorities for different tables/users (when
security's enabled)/operations?
I've been thinking about this lately too. I think we do. For managing policy
that maps pretty well to security (users and groups), hierarchical token bucket
could be a reasonable option.
Admission control across the whole cluster is a larger challenge. How does QoS
at the HBase layer translate to QoS at the HDFS layer (or not)? Should accesses
from a MapReduce job have a different priority than direct API access?
> Revisit QOS
> -----------
>
> Key: HBASE-4441
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-4441
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Reporter: Jean-Daniel Cryans
> Fix For: 0.94.0
>
>
> Currently we have a simple QOS model where requests to user tables are using
> one set of handlers and requests to catalog tables and other administrative
> functions are using another set. I'm wondering if it's worth expending this
> model:
> - Do we want to support different priorities for different tables/users
> (when security's enabled)/operations?
> - Do we want finer granularity?
> There's also issues like HBASE-4280 that exposes a case where RS communicate
> between each other and can potentially deadlock if some slowness is going on.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
