[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-3480?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14286154#comment-14286154
]
Brian Loss commented on ACCUMULO-3480:
--------------------------------------
The patch looks pretty good to me. I have been testing with it and haven't
found any errors yet. However, when testing with a large number of servers,
tablets, and groups in a test case, I'm finding that this hunk is causing a
performance bottleneck:
{code}
- surplusExtra.columnKeySet().removeAll(serversToRemove);
+ if (serversToRemove.size() > 0) {
+ surplusExtra.columnKeySet().removeAll(serversToRemove);
+ }
+
{code}
Well, really it's the columnKeySet() and removeAll(serversToRemove) calls that
are the bottleneck rather than your specific change.
> GroupBalancer improvements
> --------------------------
>
> Key: ACCUMULO-3480
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-3480
> Project: Accumulo
> Issue Type: Bug
> Reporter: Keith Turner
> Assignee: Keith Turner
> Fix For: 1.7.0
>
> Attachments: ACCUMULO-3480-1.patch
>
>
> [~bfloss] made the following comment on ACCUMULO-3439
> bq. The balance method in GroupBalancer does nothing if there are any
> incoming migrations. You probably want to check the incoming migrations and
> only bail out if any of those migrations are for the specific table that the
> GroupBalancer is managing.
> I chatted w/ Brian and he also mentioned that the group balancer should
> record time at the end, and not the beginning.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
