[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-10449?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14790660#comment-14790660
]
Nicolas Liochon commented on HBASE-10449:
-----------------------------------------
> I was thinking that we'd go to core size – say # of cores – and then if one
> request a second, we'd just stay at core size because there would be a free
> thread when the request-per-second came in (assuming request took a good deal
> < a second).
I expect that if we have more than coreSize calls in timeout (256 vs 60 seconds
in our case) then we always have coreSize threads.
> Didn't we have a mock server somewhere such that we could standup a client
> with no friction and watch it in operation? I thought we'd make such a
> beast....
Yep, you built one, we used it when we looked at the perf issues in the client
(the protobuf nightmare if you remember ;:-)).
> Wrong execution pool configuration in HConnectionManager
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HBASE-10449
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-10449
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Client
> Affects Versions: 0.98.0, 0.99.0, 0.96.1.1
> Reporter: Nicolas Liochon
> Assignee: Nicolas Liochon
> Priority: Critical
> Fix For: 0.98.0, 0.96.2, 0.99.0
>
> Attachments: HBASE-10449.v1.patch
>
>
> There is a confusion in the configuration of the pool. The attached patch
> fixes this. This may change the client performances, as we were using a
> single thread.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
