[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15265?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15193023#comment-15193023
]
Yu Li commented on HBASE-15265:
-------------------------------
Got your point, and I think these are two different ways of categorizing
WALProvider: by FS type, or by WAL number. Actually we both think the current
provider semantic putting filesystem and multiwal together is ambiguous, and
the only divergency is to remove filesystem (add a property to specify WAL
type) or multiwal (add a property to specify wal strategy, single or multiple),
agree?
Regarding which way to choose, my concern mainly lies in backward
compatibility. I guess (but may not be the truth) that currently few people
will specify "filesystem" as the provider type since it's the same as default,
but to use multiple wal they have to explicitly set provider type to multiwal.
So if we categorize WALProvider into filesystem and asyncfs, user using
multiple wal will have to update their configuration files (not a big deal but
still some additional efforts to take).
> Implement an asynchronous FSHLog
> --------------------------------
>
> Key: HBASE-15265
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15265
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Components: wal
> Reporter: Duo Zhang
> Assignee: Duo Zhang
> Fix For: 2.0.0
>
> Attachments: HBASE-15265-v1.patch, HBASE-15265-v2.patch,
> HBASE-15265-v3.patch, HBASE-15265-v4.patch, HBASE-15265-v5.patch,
> HBASE-15265-v6.patch, HBASE-15265-v7.patch, HBASE-15265.patch
>
>
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
