A separate branch similar to that for snapshot is great. +1. For wal tailing, we can just skip those edits not for the shadow regions, right?
To tail the wal, we need to wait till the wal block is available. There seems to be a hard latency. Is it better to have a pool of daemon threads to ship corresponding wal edits directly? By this way, we have a better control on what edits to ship around. The shadow region will be much closer to the primary region. We don't need a queue for those edits not shipped yet. We can just use the memstore as the queue. Once the memstore is flushed, its content is no need to ship around. On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 6:47 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <j...@cloudera.com> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 2:04 PM, Enis Söztutar <enis....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 11:51 AM, Jonathan Hsieh <j...@cloudera.com> > wrote:> > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Enis Söztutar <e...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > > > > > Thanks Jon for bringing this to dev@. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 10:01 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <j...@cloudera.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Fundamentally, I'd prefer focusing on making HBase "HBasier" > instead > > of > > > > > tackling a feature that other systems architecturally can do better > > > > > (inconsistent reads). I consider consistent reads/writes being > one > > of > > > > > HBase's defining features. That said, I think read replicas makes > > sense > > > > and > > > > > is a nice feature to have. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Our design proposal has a specific use case goal, and hopefully we > can > > > > demonstrate the > > > > benefits of having this in HBase so that even more pieces can be > built > > on > > > > top of this. Plus I imagine this will > > > > be a widely used feature for read-only tables or bulk loaded tables. > We > > > are > > > > not > > > > proposing of reworking strong consistency semantics or major > > > architectural > > > > changes. I think by > > > > having the tables to be defined with replication count, and the > > proposed > > > > client API changes (Consistency definition) > > > > plugs well into the HBase model rather well. > > > > > > > > > > > I do agree think that without any recent updating mechanism, we are > > > limiting this usefulness of this feature to essentially *only* the > > > read-only or bulk load only tables. Recency if there were any > > > edits/updates would be severely lagging (by default potentially an > hour) > > > especially in cases where there are only a few edits to a primarily > bulk > > > loaded table. This limitation is not mentioned in the tradeoffs or > > > requirements (or a non-requirements section) definitely should be > listed > > > there. > > > > > > > Obviously the amount of lag you would observe depends on whether you are > > using > > "Region snapshots", "WAL-Tailing" or "Async wal replication". I think > there > > are still > > use cases where you can live with >1 hour old stale reads, so that > "Region > > snapshots" > > is not *just* for read-only tables. I'll add these to the tradeoff's > > section. > > > > Thanks for adding it there -- I really think it is a big headline caveat on > my expectation of "eventual consistency". Other systems out there that > give you eventually consistency on the millisecond level for most cases, > while this initial implementation would has eventual mean 10's of minutes > or even handfuls of minutes behind (with the snapshots flush mechanism)! > > There are a handful of other things in the phase one part of the > implementation section that limit the usefulness of the feature to a > certain kind of constrained hbase user. I'll start another thread for > those. > > > > > > We are proposing to implement "Region snapshots" first and "Async wal > > replication" second. > > As argued, I think wal-tailing only makes sense with WALpr so, that work > is > > left until after we have WAL > > per region. > > > > > This is our main disagreement -- I'm not convinced that wal tailing only > making sense for the wal per region hlog implementation. Instead of > bouncing around hypotheticals, it sounds like I'll be doing more > experiments to prove it to myself and to convince you. :) > > > > > > > > > > With the current design it might be best to have a flag on the table > > which > > > marks it read-only or bulk-load only so that it only gets used by users > > > when the table is in that mode? (and maybe an "escape hatch" for power > > > users). > > > > > > > I think we have a read-only flag already. We might not have bulk-load > only > > flag though. Makes sense to add it > > if we want to restrict allowing bulk loads but preventing writes. > > > > Great. > > > > > > > > > [snip] > > > > > > > > - I think the two goals are both worthy on their own each with their > > own > > > > > optimal points. We should in the design makes sure that we can > > support > > > > > both goals. > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think our proposal is consistent with your doc, and we have > > considered > > > > secondary region promotion > > > > in the future section. It would be good if you can review and comment > > on > > > > whether you see any points > > > > missing. > > > > > > > > > > > > I definitely will. At the moment, I think the hybrid for the > > wals/hlogs I > > > suggested in the other thread seems to be an optimal solution > considering > > > locality. Though feasible is obviously more complex than just one > > approach > > > alone. > > > > > > > > > > > - I want to making sure the proposed design have a path for optimal > > > > > fast-consistent read-recovery. > > > > > > > > > > > > > We think that it is, but it is a secondary goal for the initial > work. I > > > > don't see any reason why secondary > > > > promotion cannot be build on top of this, once the branch is in a > > better > > > > state. > > > > > > > > > > Based on the detail in the design doc and this statement it sounds like > > you > > > have a prototype branch already? Is this the case? > > > > > > > Indeed. I think that is mentioned in the jira description. We have some > > parts of the > > changes for region, region server, HRI, and master. Client changes are on > > the way. > > I think we can post that in a github branch for now to share the code > early > > and solicit > > early reviews. > > > > I think that would be great. Back when we did snapshots, we had active > development against a prototype and spent a bit of time breaking it down > into manageable more polished pieces that had slightly lenient reviews. > This exercise really helped us with our interfaces. We committed code to > the dev branch which limited merge pains and diff for modifications made by > different contributors. In the end when we had something we were happy > with on the dev branch we merged with trunk and fixed bugs/diffs that > cropped up in the mean time. I'd suggest a similar process for this. > > > -- > // Jonathan Hsieh (shay) > // Software Engineer, Cloudera > // j...@cloudera.com >
