[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-6774?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13502375#comment-13502375
]
nkeywal commented on HBASE-6774:
--------------------------------
Yes, everything is in the "somehow" of ??we check if the region is involved in
log splitting somehow?? :-)
The advantage of doing that in ZK is that we don"t have to open all the WALs,
with the risk of going to a dead datanode (bad datanode often means 60 seconds
delay). And we don't have to read fully the last one (as well, if we finally
implement the multi WALs, we will have all these WALs to fully read). For the
others, technically, reading backward may be difficult to optimize. As well, if
the WAL is corrupted, we save the regions that were not written to.
This said, I agree that writing to ZK is not an easy decision. I think on the
long term, having a widely shared real time status on the region is
interesting, but we need the middleware (ZK here) to support this (lots of
znodes with lots of readers). It's my famous ZOOKEEPER-1147.
Devaraj told me an idea from Enis for the .meta. case: just do a specific WAL
for it. It can be generalized with the multiwals as well.
All these solutions are not incompatible between themselves anyway...
> Immediate assignment of regions that don't have entries in HLog
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HBASE-6774
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-6774
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: master, regionserver
> Affects Versions: 0.96.0
> Reporter: nkeywal
>
> The algo is today, after a failure detection:
> - split the logs
> - when all the logs are split, assign the regions
> But some regions can have no entries at all in the HLog. There are many
> reasons for this:
> - kind of reference or historical tables. Bulk written sometimes then read
> only.
> - sequential rowkeys. In this case, most of the regions will be read only.
> But they can be in a regionserver with a lot of writes.
> - tables flushed often for safety reasons. I'm thinking about meta here.
> For meta; we can imagine flushing very often. Hence, the recovery for meta,
> in many cases, will be the failure detection time.
> There are different possible algos:
> Option 1)
> A new task is added, in parallel of the split. This task reads all the HLog.
> If there is no entry for a region, this region is assigned.
> Pro: simple
> Cons: We will need to read all the files. Add a read.
> Option 2)
> The master writes in ZK the number of log files, per region.
> When the regionserver starts the split, it reads the full block (64M) and
> decrease the log file counter of the region. If it reaches 0, the assign
> start. At the end of its split, the region server decreases the counter as
> well. This allow to start the assign even if not all the HLog are finished.
> It would allow to make some regions available even if we have an issue in one
> of the log file.
> Pro: parallel
> Cons: add something to do for the region server. Requites to read the whole
> file before starting to write.
> Option 3)
> Add some metadata at the end of the log file. The last log file won't have
> meta data, as if we are recovering, it's because the server crashed. But the
> others will. And last log file should be smaller (half a block on average).
> Option 4) Still some metadata, but in a different file. Cons: write are
> increased (but not that much, we just need to write the region once). Pros:
> if we lose the HLog files (major failure, no replica available) we can still
> continue with the regions that were not written at this stage.
> I think it should be done, even if none of the algorithm above is totally
> convincing yet. It's linked as well to locality and short circuit reads: with
> these two points reading the file twice become much less of an issue for
> example. My current preference would be to open the file twice in the region
> server, once for splitting as of today, once for a quick read looking for
> unused regions. Who knows, may be it would even be faster this way, the quick
> read thread would warm-up the different caches for the splitting thread.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
