[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-16676?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15513655#comment-15513655
 ] 

Andrew Purtell commented on HBASE-16676:
----------------------------------------

True that committers might do unusual or exceptional things locally that 
shouldn't impact 'normal' users but I'd argue that isnt the case in this 
instance. Since we have support for commit of my patch I will commit it later 
today unless someone registers an objection. 

> All RPC requests serviced by PriorityRpcServer in some deploys after 
> HBASE-13375
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: HBASE-16676
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-16676
>             Project: HBase
>          Issue Type: Bug
>    Affects Versions: 1.2.0, 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3
>            Reporter: Andrew Purtell
>            Assignee: Andrew Purtell
>             Fix For: 1.2.4
>
>         Attachments: HBASE-16676-branch-1.2.patch
>
>
> I have been trying to track down why 1.2.x won't sometimes pass a 1 billion 
> row ITBLL run while 0.98.22 and 1.1.6 will always, and a defeat of RPC 
> prioritization could explain it. We get stuck during the loading phase and 
> the loader job eventually fails. 
> All testing is done in an insecure environment under the same UNIX user 
> (clusterdock) so effectively all ops are issued by the superuser.
> Doing unrelated work - or so I thought! - I was looking at object allocations 
> by YCSB workload by thread and when looking at the RegionServer RPC threads 
> noticed that for 0.98.22 and 1.1.6, as expected, the vast majority of 
> allocations are from threads named "B.defaultRpcServer.handler*". In 1.2.0 
> and up, instead the vast majority are from threads named 
> "PriorityRpcServer.handler*" with very little from threads named 
> "B.defaultRpcServer.handler*".  A git bisect to find the change that causes 
> this leads to HBASE-13375, and so of course this makes sense out of what I am 
> seeing, but is this really what we want? What about production environments 
> (insecure and degenerate secure) where all ops are effectively issued by the 
> superuser? We run one of these at Salesforce.



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

Reply via email to