[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-6721?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15139863#comment-15139863
]
stack commented on HBASE-6721:
------------------------------
What we going to do here?
One of our biggest users has been working on getting this patch landed for
years now. They put up a design and tried to address commentary as it came in.
The patch has gone through many iterations. It even got deployed by another
committer on a cluster and exercised. Implementation could be better but our
internals are a little ahem, messy, so hard to overlay a new facility. A case
has been made that this feature makes hbase palatable at scale, at least for
how it is being used at Y!
On the other hand, [~eclark] objections are wholesome/valid. By default, this
new code should not run. Having it out in a module doesn't sound like a bad
idea if optional on and a bunch of new code. Yes, overloading 'group' will
confuse as we progress. You are probably busy [~eclark] but any chance of a
list of what it would take to get you to drop your -1.
Thanks
> 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)
