[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-13082?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15015321#comment-15015321
]
stack commented on HBASE-13082:
-------------------------------
bq. // Start the CompactedHFileCleaner here
This is new?
Where we explain what it does?
This comment is no longer correct, right?
// notify scanners, close file readers, and recompute store size
Has to be public because its in the Interface? Does it have to be:
public Collection<StoreFile> getCompactedfiles() {
Might want to note that expectation is that access on methods like this one are
single-threaded: clearCompactedFiles
Do you have to stop the chore in the region or store close? Before you do your
close?
Not your change but remove it since it obviously wrong now: // 4. Compute
new store size
Yeah, this needs better explaining especially if in an Interface
67 /**
68 * Get the compacted store files
69 * @return the list of compacted files
70 */
71 Collection<StoreFile> getCompactedfiles();
You need these in the Interface?
475 boolean isPrimaryReplicaStore();
476
477 /**
478 * Closes and archives the compacted files under this store
479 */
480 void closeAndArchiveCompactedFiles() throws IOException;
481
482 /**
483 * Close and archive the compacted files under this store
484 * @param compactedStorefiles the list of compacted files
485 */
486 void closeAndArchiveCompactedFiles(List<StoreFile>
compactedStorefiles) throws IOException;
Do they have to be so specific? Can they be made more generic?
Yeah, this is hard... we have both nomenclatures going on ... compacted and
ACTIVE, DISCARDED;
157 }
This is in the StoreFile.
It seems like the compacted or not belongs in StoreFileInfo rather than in
StoreFile. Is this fact persisted across open/close?
Maybe 'compactedAway'?
Got as far as StoreFileManager.
> Coarsen StoreScanner locks to RegionScanner
> -------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HBASE-13082
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-13082
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: Bug
> Reporter: Lars Hofhansl
> Assignee: ramkrishna.s.vasudevan
> Attachments: 13082-test.txt, 13082-v2.txt, 13082-v3.txt,
> 13082-v4.txt, 13082.txt, 13082.txt, HBASE-13082.pdf, HBASE-13082_1.pdf,
> HBASE-13082_12.patch, HBASE-13082_13.patch, HBASE-13082_14.patch,
> HBASE-13082_1_WIP.patch, HBASE-13082_2.pdf, HBASE-13082_2_WIP.patch,
> HBASE-13082_3.patch, HBASE-13082_4.patch, HBASE-13082_9.patch,
> HBASE-13082_9.patch, HBASE-13082_withoutpatch.jpg, HBASE-13082_withpatch.jpg,
> LockVsSynchronized.java, gc.png, gc.png, gc.png, hits.png, next.png, next.png
>
>
> Continuing where HBASE-10015 left of.
> We can avoid locking (and memory fencing) inside StoreScanner by deferring to
> the lock already held by the RegionScanner.
> In tests this shows quite a scan improvement and reduced CPU (the fences make
> the cores wait for memory fetches).
> There are some drawbacks too:
> * All calls to RegionScanner need to be remain synchronized
> * Implementors of coprocessors need to be diligent in following the locking
> contract. For example Phoenix does not lock RegionScanner.nextRaw() and
> required in the documentation (not picking on Phoenix, this one is my fault
> as I told them it's OK)
> * possible starving of flushes and compaction with heavy read load.
> RegionScanner operations would keep getting the locks and the
> flushes/compactions would not be able finalize the set of files.
> I'll have a patch soon.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
