Exactly. J-D
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 2:45 PM, Nanheng Wu <[email protected]> wrote: > Sorry for trying to bring this topic back again guys, so currently in > 0.20.6 is there's no way to drop a table without large amount of > flushing? > > On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 3:04 PM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <[email protected]> > wrote: >> Moving this discussion to jira: >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-3557 >> >> Good stuff guys. >> >> J-D >> >> On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 8:25 AM, Hari Sreekumar >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> I agree, and I have missed this a lot too. We should have a way to directly >>> drop the table, it would help save a lot of time while developing /testing. >>> Maybe also have a config entry to enable this behavior, like we have >>> webinterface.private.actions in hadoop. It can be enabled on the dev cluster >>> and disabled on production etc. >>> >>> Hari >>> >>> On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Lars George <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Could be having some "force" flag specified 3 times and asked for >>>> confirmation as well, but I like this feature. Whenever I talk to >>>> people who disable and get stuck it was to prepare a subsequent drop >>>> table call. So this sounds really useful given enough safety latches >>>> in place. >>>> >>>> Lars >>>> >>>> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 1:50 AM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> > Actually I never thought of having a special case for that... and I >>>> > don't see any jira about it. Would you mind opening a new one for >>>> > that, I think it's a good idea for those times when you're developing >>>> > something and you want to iterate fast. >>>> > >>>> > On the other hand, it's a pretty destructive feature so some people >>>> > might disagree with having it in the codebase :) >>>> > >>>> > J-D >>>> > >>>> > On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 4:26 PM, Nanheng Wu <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >> Actually I wanted to disable the table so I can drop it. It would be >>>> >> nice to be able to disable the table without flushing memstore. It's >>>> >> not possible in 0.20.6 is it? >>>> >> >>>> >> On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Jean-Daniel Cryans < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>> To disable a region, it's memstore must first be flushed. That's done >>>> >>> sequentially for all regions that must be disabled inside a table. >>>> >>> There's not really a way around it unless you don't need that data. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> If you're planning to disable a table but at the same time need it to >>>> >>> be unavailable for the shortest time possible, I recommend calling a >>>> >>> flush on the table from the shell first and then some time later doing >>>> >>> the disable. How much later you ask? Well there's currently no easy >>>> >>> way to tell, I usually just tail any region server log file until I >>>> >>> see they're done. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> J-D >>>> >>> >>>> >>> On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 2:21 PM, Nanheng Wu <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> From time to time I run into issues where disabling a table pretty >>>> >>>> much hangs. I am simply calling the disableTable method fo HBaseAdmin. >>>> >>>> The table has ~ 500 regions with default region file size. I couldn't >>>> >>>> tell anything abnormal from the master's log. When I click on the >>>> >>>> region from Master's web UI I get the "RegionOfflineException". I am >>>> >>>> using HBase 0.20.6 + Hadoop 0.20.2. My cluster has ~10 nodes with one >>>> >>>> node running Master/ZK/NameNode. Can someone help me understand what's >>>> >>>> wrong? Thanks! >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>>> >> >>>> > >>>> >>> >> >
