Excuse me? How does that affect the issue of snapshotting a table?
And how can replication NOT involve meta-data? On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 10:55 PM, jiangwen w <wjiang...@gmail.com> wrote: > replication does not involve meta data. > > On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 12:32 PM, Ryan Rawson <ryano...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Is it possible to search a list of z nodes? That is what we do now with > > meta > > in hbase. > > > > I used to be a fan, but I think self hosting all important meta data is > the > > best approach. It makes lots of things easier, like replication, > snapshots, > > etc. > > On Mar 17, 2011 9:27 PM, "jiangwen w" <wjiang...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > how do you think about moving meta table to ZK, so no meta table are > > needed. > > > if we do so, we need enhance ZK in the following way: > > > 1. let children of ZNode in order. > > > > > > if we do so, we can benifit: > > > > > > 1. no need to treat meta table as a special way. this will simplify the > > code > > > a lot > > > 2. ZK is highly available, so we don't worry the availablility of the > > meta > > > data. > > > 3. currently if the region server where meta table is on failed, the > > whole > > > cluster may pause. > > > if we move meta table to ZK, there is no such problem. > > > 4. meta table may be a hotspot, but in ZK reading is scalable by adding > > more > > > observers. > > > > > > > > > Sincerely > > >
