[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-12035?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14291739#comment-14291739
]
Andrey Stepachev commented on HBASE-12035:
------------------------------------------
some sum-up:
1. moving state into meta - that is good.
2. removing state from hdfs - thats to not keep one thing twice, considered good
3. moving htd to meta - ? is that good? We can lighting hdfs and master hits
with that, but that is not obvious is it need to be lightened.
4. keep eventual copy of htd in meta, but primary copy in hdfs - seem lead to
complication and ambiguous behaviour.
So, I'm going to drop 3 and 4 and do 1 and 2.
Or moving htd to meta is not so bad as it looks like? Any thoughts?
> Client does an RPC to master everytime a region is relocated
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HBASE-12035
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-12035
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Client, master
> Affects Versions: 2.0.0
> Reporter: Enis Soztutar
> Assignee: Andrey Stepachev
> Priority: Critical
> Fix For: 2.0.0
>
> Attachments: HBASE-12035.patch, HBASE-12035.patch, HBASE-12035.patch
>
>
> HBASE-7767 moved table enabled|disabled state to be kept in hdfs instead of
> zookeeper. isTableDisabled() which is used in
> HConnectionImplementation.relocateRegion() now became a master RPC call
> rather than a zookeeper client call. Since we do relocateRegion() calls
> everytime we want to relocate a region (region moved, RS down, etc) this
> implies that when the master is down, the some of the clients for uncached
> regions will be affected.
> See HBASE-7767 and HBASE-11974 for some more background.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
