[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-22149?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Sean Busbey resolved HBASE-22149.
---------------------------------
Resolution: Fixed
Fix Version/s: hbase-filesystem-1.0.0-alpha1
Release Note:
<!-- markdown -->
Initial implementation of the hbase-oss module. Defines a wrapper FileSystem
implementation of Apache Hadoop's FileSystem interface that bridges the gap
between Apache HBase, which assumes that many operations are atomic, and
object-store implementations of FileSystem (such as s3a) which inherently
cannot provide atomic semantics to those operations natively.
The implementation can be used e.g. with the s3a filesystem by using a root fs
like `s3a://bucket/` and defining
* `fs.s3a.impl` set to `org.apache.hadoop.hbase.oss.HBaseObjectStoreSemantics`
* `fs.hboss.fs.s3a.impl` set to `org.apache.hadoop.fs.s3a.S3AFileSystem`
more details in the module's README.md
NOTE: This module is labeled with an ALPHA version. It is not considered
production ready and makes no promises about compatibility between versions.
Initial implementation merged to the hbase-filesystem repository. Thanks
[~mackrorysd] and [~wchevreuil] for the work so far!
If anyone wants to see more/different details in the release note please feel
free to edit or suggest.
> HBOSS: A FileSystem implementation to provide HBase's required semantics on
> object stores
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HBASE-22149
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-22149
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Components: Filesystem Integration
> Reporter: Sean Mackrory
> Assignee: Sean Mackrory
> Priority: Critical
> Fix For: hbase-filesystem-1.0.0-alpha1
>
> Attachments: HBASE-22149-hadoop.patch, HBASE-22149-hbase-2.patch,
> HBASE-22149-hbase-3.patch, HBASE-22149-hbase-4.patch,
> HBASE-22149-hbase-5.patch, HBASE-22149-hbase-filesystem-1.patch,
> HBASE-22149-hbase-filesystem-1.patch, HBASE-22149-hbase.patch
>
>
> (Have been using the name HBOSS for HBase / Object Store Semantics)
> I've had some thoughts about how to solve the problem of running HBase on
> object stores. There has been some thought in the past about adding the
> required semantics to S3Guard, but I have some concerns about that. First,
> it's mixing complicated solutions to different problems (bridging the gap
> between a flat namespace and a hierarchical namespace vs. solving
> inconsistency). Second, it's S3-specific, whereas other objects stores could
> use virtually identical solutions. And third, we can't do things like atomic
> renames in a true sense. There would have to be some trade-offs specific to
> HBase's needs and it's better if we can solve that in an HBase-specific
> module without mixing all that logic in with the rest of S3A.
> Ideas to solve this above the FileSystem layer have been proposed and
> considered (HBASE-20431, for one), and maybe that's the right way forward
> long-term, but it certainly seems to be a hard problem and hasn't been done
> yet. But I don't know enough of all the internal considerations to make much
> of a judgment on that myself.
> I propose a FileSystem implementation that wraps another FileSystem instance
> and provides locking of FileSystem operations to ensure correct semantics.
> Locking could quite possibly be done on the same ZooKeeper ensemble as an
> HBase cluster already uses (I'm sure there are some performance
> considerations here that deserve more attention). I've put together a
> proof-of-concept on which I've tested some aspects of atomic renames and
> atomic file creates. Both of these tests fail reliably on a naked s3a
> instance. I've also done a small YCSB run against a small cluster to sanity
> check other functionality and was successful. I will post the patch, and my
> laundry list of things that still need work. The WAL is still placed on HDFS,
> but the HBase root directory is otherwise on S3.
> Note that my prototype is built on Hadoop's source tree right now. That's
> purely for my convenience in putting it together quickly, as that's where I
> mostly work. I actually think long-term, if this is accepted as a good
> solution, it makes sense to live in HBase (or it's own repository). It only
> depends on stable, public APIs in Hadoop and is targeted entirely at HBase's
> needs, so it should be able to iterate on the HBase community's terms alone.
> Another idea [~ste...@apache.org] proposed to me is that of an inode-based
> FileSystem that keeps hierarchical metadata in a more appropriate store that
> would allow the required transactions (maybe a special table in HBase could
> provide that store itself for other tables), and stores the underlying files
> with unique identifiers on S3. This allows renames to actually become fast
> instead of just large atomic operations. It does however place a strong
> dependency on the metadata store. I have not explored this idea much. My
> current proof-of-concept has been pleasantly simple, so I think it's the
> right solution unless it proves unable to provide the required performance
> characteristics.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
