Part of HBASE-7055 patch that we picked includes CompactionConfiguration class, which uses a prefix for config values. See ::getMinCompactSize on that class, it's still used in compaction.
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> wrote: > The history of this change on trunk appears to be the commit of a removal > as pointed out by Stack, then a revert of that commit. Later the patch or a > similar one is applied - and reverted and applied again - as pointed out by > Ted. A bit confusing and incidental to the discussion of its possible > usefulness. Can we get back to that? > > > > > On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 1:41 PM, Ted Yu <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I looked at the diff for the following four commits: > > > > r1414308 | stack | 2012-11-28 02:33:28 +0800 (Wed, 28 Nov 2012) | 1 line > > > > HBASE-7110 refactor the compaction selection and config code similarly to > > 0.89-fb changes; REAPPLY v9 > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > r1414000 | stack | 2012-11-27 13:23:14 +0800 (Tue, 27 Nov 2012) | 1 line > > > > HBASE-7110 refactor the compaction selection and config code similarly to > > 0.89-fb changes; REVERT of original patch and ADDENDUM because applied > old > > patch originally, v8 > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > r1413995 | stack | 2012-11-27 12:48:38 +0800 (Tue, 27 Nov 2012) | 1 line > > > > HBASE-7110 refactor the compaction selection and config code similarly to > > 0.89-fb changes; ADDENDUM to fix broke TestHeapSize > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > r1413912 | stack | 2012-11-27 06:51:37 +0800 (Tue, 27 Nov 2012) | 1 line > > > > HBASE-7110 refactor the compaction selection and config code similarly to > > 0.89-fb changes > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > r1407725 | larsh | 2012-11-10 12:28:07 +0800 (Sat, 10 Nov 2012) | 1 line > > > > HBASE-4583 Integrate RWCC with Append and Increment operations > > > > Here is what I found: > > > > $ svn diff -r 1407725:1414308 > > > hbase-server/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/regionserver/HStore.java > > | grep "hbase.hstore.compaction.min" > > - conf.getInt("hbase.hstore.compaction.min", > > - LOG.info("hbase.hstore.compaction.min = " + this.minFilesToCompact); > > - this.minCompactSize = > conf.getLong("hbase.hstore.compaction.min.size", > > - * "hbase.hstore.compaction.min.size" > > - * "hbase.hstore.compaction.min" > > > > Cheers > > > > On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 11:09 AM, Stack <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I was reading an old thriller, "HBASE-3149 Make flush decisions per > > column > > > family", and I got to the good bit where our NicolasS argues that > per-CF > > > flush is likely not needed because small files is fine actually as long > > as > > > these small files are hoovered up quckly. He mentioned > > > the hbase.hstore.compaction.min.size config which we'd set to be equal > to > > > flush size and he argued that our default should be much lower -- > 1/16th > > > smaller -- so we always get rid of the small files first. > > > > > > The config. was removed here: > > > > > > Author: Zhihong Yu <[email protected]> 2012-10-30 13:14:01 > > > Committer: Zhihong Yu <[email protected]> 2012-10-30 13:14:01 > > > Parent: 2c0261b4e6571d627fb017338aeaf10089b75dab (HBASE-7060 Region > load > > > balancing by table does not handle the case where a table's region > count > > is > > > lower than the number of the RS in the cluster (Ted Yu and Tianying)) > > > Child: 7380036d88ed6c6ddfad4f4fc2ef617ab419d610 (HBASE-7055 port > > > HBASE-6371 tier-based compaction from 0.89-fb to trunk - revert for > > further > > > discussion) > > > Branches: many (31) > > > Follows: > > > Precedes: > > > > > > HBASE-7055 port HBASE-6371 tier-based compaction from 0.89-fb to > > trunk > > > (Sergey) > > > > > > I was wondering if w/ our new compaction algos if we are making use of > > > NicolasS's advice (informed by experience) or not? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > St.Ack > > > > > > > > > -- > Best regards, > > - Andy > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein > (via Tom White) >
