[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-14070?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15378417#comment-15378417
 ] 

Sai Teja Ranuva commented on HBASE-14070:
-----------------------------------------

[~enis] 
Referring to description in RB link - "TTL works with HLC timestamps and SYSTEM 
timestamps".

I feel TTL might not work well with HLC, as there could be a message with much 
greater PT than the current system time, say a second (but less than max delta 
we set), which can take the HLC physical time forward. If you read the time the 
HLC time before the message was received and after the message was received, 
the difference will be inflated by one second. 
Can you clarity this aspect ?


> Hybrid Logical Clocks for HBase
> -------------------------------
>
>                 Key: HBASE-14070
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-14070
>             Project: HBase
>          Issue Type: New Feature
>            Reporter: Enis Soztutar
>            Assignee: Sai Teja Ranuva
>         Attachments: HybridLogicalClocksforHBaseandPhoenix.docx, 
> HybridLogicalClocksforHBaseandPhoenix.pdf
>
>
> HBase and Phoenix uses systems physical clock (PT) to give timestamps to 
> events (read and writes). This works mostly when the system clock is strictly 
> monotonically increasing and there is no cross-dependency between servers 
> clocks. However we know that leap seconds, general clock skew and clock drift 
> are in fact real. 
> This jira proposes using Hybrid Logical Clocks (HLC) as an implementation of 
> hybrid physical clock + a logical clock. HLC is best of both worlds where it 
> keeps causality relationship similar to logical clocks, but still is 
> compatible with NTP based physical system clock. HLC can be represented in 
> 64bits. 
> A design document is attached and also can be found here: 
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LL2GAodiYi0waBz5ODGL4LDT4e_bXy8P9h6kWC05Bhw/edit#



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

Reply via email to