Could y'all get some of this into the reference guide? Talks and release notes are great, but I really want us to make sure operators have a nice place to figure out all the stuff we're landing in 2.0.
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 10:13 AM, Yu Li <car...@gmail.com> wrote: > @Mike > FWIW, besides checking the JIRAs and codes, the talk Duo gave in our > HBaseCon 2016 may help you better understand the whole picture, please > check page 14 to 20 of this presentation > <https://www.slideshare.net/HBaseCon/apache-hbase-improvements-and-practices-at-xiaomi> > on > slideshare. > > Best Regards, > Yu > > On 27 March 2018 at 14:26, 张铎(Duo Zhang) <palomino...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> 2018-03-27 12:35 GMT+08:00 Mike Drob <md...@apache.org>: >> >> > Hi folks, >> > >> > I've been working on some of the docs relating to the upcoming 2.0 >> release >> > and have struggled to find content around AsyncWAL. My impression is that >> > this is a pretty important new feature, yet there's nothing in the ref >> > guide about it. >> > >> > Does it have a different name that I'm not familiar with? >> > >> > If it's not in the ref guide, should I file a JIRA issue for somebody to >> > generate that content? Specific things that I'd be looking for are: >> > - How to enable/disable >> > >> See HBASE-15536, just like the old way, config hbase.wal.provider >> >> > - How does this impact data durability, MTTR, failover scenarios, etc. >> > >> Does not impact these things. >> >> > - How does this impact replication >> > >> Ditto. >> >> > - Which configuration knobs exist and when would I want to tune them >> > >> Usually you do not need to tune anything... >> Before committing HBASE-15536 we have done a lot of performance testings. >> There are two configs which may effect performance, one >> is hbase.wal.batch.size, and the other >> is hbase.wal.async.use-shared-event-loop. But it is hard to say how to >> tune >> them... >> And another thing is that, with AsyncFSWAL we can set a lower timeout when >> writing WAL, but now it just shares the common dfs configuration. Maybe we >> should file an issue for it. >> >> > >> > As a last resort, I can try to dig through RNs in existing issues, but >> > that's been pretty hit or miss (mostly miss) for me so far too. >> > >> > I think at least we need to mention the reason why we introduce >> AsyncFSWAL >> and make it default for 2.0 in our refguide. >> >> > Thanks, >> > Mike >> > >>
