Regarding HDFS-347, I believe the following to be true: - The "bastard" option, i.e. Ryan's patch against 0.20 that just does local reads via File, does lower latency enough to make a difference in HBase random read latencies as measured. I forget the magnitude of the difference offhand but seem to remember something like at least 2x. Can't say about the FD-passing variant because I don't think any HBasers have used it. I want to test both myself, but am limited to EC2 based testbeds so will have a lot of difficulty (to say the least) correcting for platform variability, so it's pretty far down the to-do list as a result.
- HBASE-SEARCH (HBASE-3529) uses this to make Lucene embedding work: https://github.com/jasonrutherglen/HBASE-SEARCH - Andy > From: Doug Meil <doug.m...@explorysmedical.com> > Subject: HDFS-1599 status? (HDFS tickets to improve HBase) > To: "dev@hbase.apache.org" <dev@hbase.apache.org> > Date: Thursday, June 2, 2011, 2:00 PM > Hi folks, I was wondering if there > was any movement on any of these HDFS tickets for > HBase. The umbrella ticket is HDFS-1599, but the last > comment from stack back in Feb highlighted interest in > several tickets: > > > 1) HDFS-918 (use single selector) > > a. Last comment Jan 2011 > > > > 2) HDFS-941 (reuse of connection) > > a. Patch available as of > April 2011 > > b. But ticket still unresolved. > > > > 3) HDFS-347 (local reads) > > a. Discussion seemed to end > in March 2011 with a huge comment saying that there was no > performance benefit. > > b. I'm working my way through this > comment/report, but intuitively it seems like it would be a > good idea since as the other comments in the ticket stated > the RS reads locally just about every time. > > > Doug Meil > Chief Software Architect, Explorys > doug.m...@explorys.com > >
