(as Lars recommends)
and make some of the hbase conf values to more closely match the zk conf
values (though hbase.${zk.value} is really not bad).
-Jesse
From: Ryan Rawson [ryano...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, July 04, 2011 5:25 AM
To: dev@hbase.apache.org
Subject: Re: zoo.cfg vs hbase
consistent (as Lars
recommends)
and make some of the hbase conf values to more closely match the zk conf
values (though hbase.${zk.value} is really not bad).
-Jesse
From: Ryan Rawson [ryano...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, July 04, 2011 5:25 AM
To: dev@hbase.apache.org
Subject: Re: zoo.cfg vs hbase
@hbase.apache.org
Subject: Re: zoo.cfg vs hbase-site.xml
Should just fully deprecate zoo.cfg, it ended up being more trouble
than it was worth. When you use zoo.cfg you cannot connect to more
than 1 cluster from a single JVM. Annoying!
On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 10:22 AM, Ted Yu yuzhih
Should just fully deprecate zoo.cfg, it ended up being more trouble
than it was worth. When you use zoo.cfg you cannot connect to more
than 1 cluster from a single JVM. Annoying!
On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 10:22 AM, Ted Yu yuzhih...@gmail.com wrote:
I looked at conf/zoo_sample.cfg from zookeeper
)
and make some of the hbase conf values to more closely match the zk conf
values (though hbase.${zk.value} is really not bad).
-Jesse
From: Ryan Rawson [ryano...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, July 04, 2011 5:25 AM
To: dev@hbase.apache.org
Subject: Re: zoo.cfg vs hbase-site.xml
Should just fully
Hi,
Usually the zoo.cfg overrides *all* settings off the hbase-site.xml
(including the ones from hbase-default.xml) - when present. But in some
places we do not consider this, for example in HConnectionManager:
static {
// We set instances to one more than the value specified for {@link
I looked at conf/zoo_sample.cfg from zookeeper trunk. The naming of
properties is different from the way we name
hbase.zookeeper.property.maxClientCnxns
e.g.
# the port at which the clients will connect
clientPort=2181
FYI
On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 9:53 AM, Lars George lars.geo...@gmail.com wrote:
