[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-6721?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15120692#comment-15120692
]
Enis Soztutar commented on HBASE-6721:
--------------------------------------
bq. The exact same was requested for memcached block cache, and it was
reasonable then. I'm simply asking for this feature to get the same treatment
that optional off by default removable features should get
Yep, everybody agrees that it should be completely optional and non-core for
this. What I am saying is that there is no need to fork out a different module
for this. I just checked, nobody asked the memcache thing to be a different
module above.
bq. This feature should never be used by anyone other than yahoo and we have a
duty to our users to make sure that they understand that.
That is up for the users to decide. Sophisticated users can make their own
decisions.
bq. rsgroup as used in the table name is better.
Agreed. I've brought this up in the review already. I thought we have addressed
the cases, but if we haven't, we should stick with rsgroups rather than groups.
Having consistent naming is something we are lacking in hbase (alter table in
shell vs modify table in java, etc).
> RegionServer Group based Assignment
> -----------------------------------
>
> Key: HBASE-6721
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-6721
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Reporter: Francis Liu
> Assignee: Francis Liu
> Labels: hbase-6721
> Attachments: 6721-master-webUI.patch, HBASE-6721
> GroupBasedLoadBalancer Sequence Diagram.xml, HBASE-6721-DesigDoc.pdf,
> HBASE-6721-DesigDoc.pdf, HBASE-6721-DesigDoc.pdf, HBASE-6721-DesigDoc.pdf,
> HBASE-6721_0.98_2.patch, HBASE-6721_10.patch, HBASE-6721_11.patch,
> HBASE-6721_12.patch, HBASE-6721_13.patch, HBASE-6721_14.patch,
> HBASE-6721_15.patch, HBASE-6721_8.patch, HBASE-6721_9.patch,
> HBASE-6721_9.patch, HBASE-6721_94.patch, HBASE-6721_94.patch,
> HBASE-6721_94_2.patch, HBASE-6721_94_3.patch, HBASE-6721_94_3.patch,
> HBASE-6721_94_4.patch, HBASE-6721_94_5.patch, HBASE-6721_94_6.patch,
> HBASE-6721_94_7.patch, HBASE-6721_98_1.patch, HBASE-6721_98_2.patch,
> HBASE-6721_hbase-6721_addendum.patch, HBASE-6721_trunk.patch,
> HBASE-6721_trunk.patch, HBASE-6721_trunk.patch, HBASE-6721_trunk1.patch,
> HBASE-6721_trunk2.patch, balanceCluster Sequence Diagram.svg,
> hbase-6721-v15-branch-1.1.patch, hbase-6721-v16.patch, hbase-6721-v17.patch,
> hbase-6721-v18.patch, hbase-6721-v19.patch, hbase-6721-v20.patch,
> hbase-6721-v21.patch, hbase-6721-v22.patch, hbase-6721-v23.patch,
> hbase-6721-v25.patch, immediateAssignments Sequence Diagram.svg,
> randomAssignment Sequence Diagram.svg, retainAssignment Sequence Diagram.svg,
> roundRobinAssignment Sequence Diagram.svg
>
>
> In multi-tenant deployments of HBase, it is likely that a RegionServer will
> be serving out regions from a number of different tables owned by various
> client applications. Being able to group a subset of running RegionServers
> and assign specific tables to it, provides a client application a level of
> isolation and resource allocation.
> The proposal essentially is to have an AssignmentManager which is aware of
> RegionServer groups and assigns tables to region servers based on groupings.
> Load balancing will occur on a per group basis as well.
> This is essentially a simplification of the approach taken in HBASE-4120. See
> attached document.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
