[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-17110?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15707921#comment-15707921
 ] 

Ted Yu commented on HBASE-17110:
--------------------------------

Test failure was not related to the patch.

Should be good to go.

> Add an "Overall Strategy" option(balanced both on table level and server 
> level) to SimpleLoadBalancer
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: HBASE-17110
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-17110
>             Project: HBase
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: Balancer
>    Affects Versions: 2.0.0, 1.2.4
>            Reporter: Charlie Qiangeng Xu
>            Assignee: Charlie Qiangeng Xu
>         Attachments: HBASE-17110-V2.patch, HBASE-17110-V3.patch, 
> HBASE-17110-V4.patch, HBASE-17110-V5.patch, HBASE-17110-V6.patch, 
> HBASE-17110-V7.patch, HBASE-17110-V8.patch, HBASE-17110.patch
>
>
> This jira is about an enhancement of simpleLoadBalancer. Here we introduce a 
> new strategy: "bytableOverall" which could be controlled by adding:
> {noformat}
> <property>
>   <name>hbase.master.loadbalance.bytableOverall</name>
>   <value>true</value>
> </property>
> {noformat}
> We have been using the strategy on our largest cluster for several months. 
> it's proven to be very helpful and stable, especially, the result is quite 
> visible to the users.
> Here is the reason why it's helpful:
> When operating large scale clusters(our case), some companies still prefer to 
> use {{SimpleLoadBalancer}} due to its simplicity, quick balance plan 
> generation, etc. Current SimpleLoadBalancer has two modes: 
> 1. byTable, which only guarantees that the regions of one table could be 
> uniformly distributed. 
> 2. byCluster, which ignores the distribution within tables and balance the 
> regions all together.
> If the pressures on different tables are different, the first byTable option 
> is the preferable one in most case. Yet, this choice sacrifice the cluster 
> level balance and would cause some servers to have significantly higher load, 
> e.g. 242 regions on server A but 417 regions on server B.(real world stats)
> Consider this case,  a cluster has 3 tables and 4 servers:
> {noformat}
>   server A has 3 regions: table1:1, table2:1, table3:1
>   server B has 3 regions: table1:2, table2:2, table3:2
>   server C has 3 regions: table1:3, table2:3, table3:3
>   server D has 0 regions.
> {noformat}
> From the byTable strategy's perspective, the cluster has already been 
> perfectly balanced on table level. But a perfect status should be like:
> {noformat}
>   server A has 2 regions: table2:1, table3:1
>   server B has 2 regions: table1:2, table3:2
>   server C has 3 regions: table1:3, table2:3, table3:3
>   server D has 2 regions: table1:1, table2:2
> {noformat}
> We can see the server loads change from 3,3,3,0 to 2,2,3,2, while the table1, 
> table2 and table3 still keep balanced.   
> And this is what the new mode "byTableOverall" can achieve.
> Two UTs have been added as well and the last one demonstrates the advantage 
> of the new strategy.
> Also, a onConfigurationChange method has been implemented to hot control the 
> "slop" variable.
>  



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

Reply via email to