[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-11288?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17183943#comment-17183943
]
Duo Zhang commented on HBASE-11288:
-----------------------------------
{quote}
Master Local Region is a specialization because it makes root no longer the
same as hbase:meta. It is no longer is a table like meta table: local region,
does not host region on a regionserver, etc. Solutions to root cannot always be
generalized to hbase:meta.
In itself Master Local Region implementation has its merits but when taking it
as part of a whole: the catalog, I’m of the opinion we’d need a compelling
reason to justify the specialization?
{quote}
I'm really really tierd here. I've posted my opinion many times on this but no
matter what I say, you still just ignore it and repeat the same words many many
times. 'My solutoin is general, you solution is specialized'.
{quote}
For the purpose of understanding where this discussion is going. Earlier you
mentioned if we could get a reasonable result from the ITBLL run you would
change your mind. Is this still the case?
{quote}
I've already replied above. This is not a fair play to me. Why I said these
words, was just because I wanted to make progress and also get the same
response back, on how you could change your mind. This is your answer:
{quote}
What value are we getting out of having a specialized solution for root instead
of fixing it for both the catalog tables (root and meta) as a whole and is it
worth it? If there is another answer that is compelling like 2-tiered
assignment readiness. That would definitely be something that would change my
current thinking on the “master local region” approach. Hopefully I addressed
your concern?
{quote}
And there is a trap that, for passing ITBLL, you do not need to convence
anyone, but your response here, means I need to convence you. So things get
back to what I said above, though I explained a lot on what is 'general' and
what is 'specialized', you just ignoreed all the my posts and repeated your
words, and then using the ITBLL result to force me change my mind. I think I've
been fooled here. So my answer is, I will never change my mind. Just
introducing a root table but even do not support splitting meta, do not need
too much code, for my solution it is also easy to pass ITBLL with so little new
feature. So what is value here?
Based on the recent activity, I do not think we can reach an agreement here.
You can do what you want here and I will open another issue to land my solution.
Thanks.
> Splittable Meta
> ---------------
>
> Key: HBASE-11288
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-11288
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: Umbrella
> Components: meta
> Reporter: Francis Christopher Liu
> Assignee: Francis Christopher Liu
> Priority: Major
> Attachments: jstack20200807_bad_rpc_priority.txt, root_priority.patch
>
>
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
