I think you are right, maybe in the long run I need to re-architect my system so that it doesn't need to create new and delete old tables all the time. In the short term I am having a really hard time with the disabling function, I ran a disable command on a very small table (probably dozen of MBs in size) and are no client using the cluster at all, and that took about 1 hour to complete! The weird thing is on the web UI only the region server carrying the META table has non-zero requests, all other RS have 0 requests the entire time. I would think they should get some request to flush the memstore at least. I *am* using the same RS nodes for some map reduce job at the time and top shows the memory usage is almost full on the META region. Would you have some idea of what I should investigate? Thanks so much.
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <[email protected]> wrote: > I haven't tried, but it seems incredibly hacky and bound to generate > more problems than it solves. Instead you could consider using > different table names. > > J-D > > On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 3:21 PM, Nanheng Wu <[email protected]> wrote: >> What would happen if I try to remove the region files from hdfs and >> then remove the regions from the meta table? Is hbase gonna get messed >> up when it later needs to flush those regions out of the memstore? >> Thanks! >> >> On Thursday, February 24, 2011, Jean-Daniel Cryans <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> 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 >>>>>>> >> >
