-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/24855/#review51183
-----------------------------------------------------------


Thanks for the changes, Keith. I think this is much more approachable. I'm 
guessing that there are still some devils lying in wait, but I like the general 
approach.


docs/src/main/asciidoc/design/ACCUMULO-1454-proposal-01.adoc
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/24855/#comment89206>

    The re-assignment of the tablets from the node that was restarted should 
get reassigned back to that node because of the last location in for the 
tablet, right?



docs/src/main/asciidoc/design/ACCUMULO-1454-proposal-01.adoc
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/24855/#comment89209>

    stop-here.sh and start-here.sh already can't be used when running more than 
one tserver per host (e.g. Slider -- accumulo on yarn) because those scripts 
assume that there is only one process per node.
    
    This is a bigger problem in regards to the assumptions that the scripts 
make. I've come to the conclusion already that we need to rethink the scripts 
to support this.
    
    I think what you've outlined for rolling restarts still makes sense with 
multiple tservers per host (assuming the last loc is host:port and not just 
host)



docs/src/main/asciidoc/design/ACCUMULO-1454-proposal-01.adoc
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/24855/#comment89210>

    Important to note that some properties (instance.* specifically) cannot be 
changed and restarted sequentially as the SystemCredential will have changed.



docs/src/main/asciidoc/design/ACCUMULO-1454-proposal-01.adoc
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/24855/#comment89211>

    Preemption is a big consideration here in regards to major compactions and 
scans.
    
    MajC's over very large tablets, with iterators applied, could take a 
significant amount of time.
    
    Scans which are performing large filtering (IntersectingIterator-like 
operations) could induce a bit of extra latency to the user. They shouldn't see 
it fail (as long as no external system kills the scan), but it will take a 
while.
    
    I think with majc we just want to cancel them. Do we wait for scans to 
finish before unloading? I can think of considerations for both waiting on them 
or cancelling them.



docs/src/main/asciidoc/design/ACCUMULO-1454-proposal-01.adoc
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/24855/#comment89212>

    Would decomission(String) do more/less than what `accumulo admin stop 
tserver` currently does?


- Josh Elser


On Aug. 20, 2014, 5:40 p.m., kturner wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/24855/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Aug. 20, 2014, 5:40 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for accumulo.
> 
> 
> Bugs: ACCUMULO-1454
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-1454
> 
> 
> Repository: accumulo
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Positing ACCUMULO-1454 design doc for review
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   docs/src/main/asciidoc/design/ACCUMULO-1454-proposal-01.adoc PRE-CREATION 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/24855/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> kturner
> 
>

Reply via email to