HBASE-22590 has been resolved and HBASE-21512 has been rebased. Still need one more vote...
张铎(Duo Zhang) <palomino...@gmail.com> 于2019年6月15日周六 下午9:06写道： > When filling the release note, I found that I'd better do some works on > master first, such as removing the deprecated methods in Table interface, > so the release note will be clean. And also I seem to forget changing the > javadoc for some methods in the Admin interface since their behavior have > been changed, for example, Admin.split will return after the split is done, > and in the past it will return immediately after master received the > request. > > Let me finish these things first. > > 张铎(Duo Zhang) <palomino...@gmail.com> 于2019年6月15日周六 上午8:32写道： > >> HBASE-22577 is almost there. But I think I still need one more +1 here so >> I can merge HBASE-21512 back... >> >> 张铎(Duo Zhang) <palomino...@gmail.com> 于2019年6月14日周五 下午4:54写道： >> >>> After applying HBASE-22577 the performance is good enough now. And the >>> YCSB workloada also shows that there are no big differences on performance. >>> Please see the comments on HBASE-22564 for more details. >>> >>> Will get HBASE-22577 in soon, and resolve the pending issues such >>> as HBASE-22237. >>> >>> Any other concerns? Thanks. >>> >>> 张铎(Duo Zhang) <palomino...@gmail.com> 于2019年6月14日周五 上午11:27写道： >>> >>>> It’s hadoop-2.8.5. >>>> >>>> But I do not think it makes much difference, we just use the same >>>> server setup, only different clients implementation. >>>> >>>> Sakthi <sakthivel.azh...@gmail.com>于2019年6月14日 周五10:18写道： >>>> >>>>> Duo, >>>>> >>>>> What version on Hadoop did you use in the 5 node cluster for your >>>>> comparisons? For what it's worth, I would also like to try out the >>>>> PE/LTT >>>>> comparison of both the clients. Or, if any other form of comparison >>>>> would >>>>> be helpful then I'm open for suggestions and would like to give it a >>>>> try. >>>>> >>>>> Sakthi >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 4:55 PM 张铎(Duo Zhang) <palomino...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> > It will be transparent, mostly, the interface is still kept. There >>>>> are some >>>>> > incompatible behaviors, for example, now admin.split will wait till >>>>> the >>>>> > split is actually done, while in the old time it will return >>>>> immediately >>>>> > after we send the request to master. >>>>> > >>>>> > Jean-Marc Spaggiari <jean-m...@spaggiari.org>于2019年6月13日 周四23:26写道： >>>>> > >>>>> > > Hi, >>>>> > > >>>>> > > Is this going to change the way the client should be called? Or it >>>>> will >>>>> > be >>>>> > > mostly transparent replacement? >>>>> > > >>>>> > > Thanks, >>>>> > > >>>>> > > JMS >>>>> > > >>>>> > > Le jeu. 13 juin 2019 à 02:13, 张铎(Duo Zhang) <palomino...@gmail.com> >>>>> a >>>>> > > écrit : >>>>> > > >>>>> > > > Josh Elser <els...@apache.org> 于2019年6月12日周三 下午10:00写道： >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > > Nice perf results! >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-22237 looks like >>>>> it's >>>>> > also >>>>> > > > > good to be resolved, given >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > >>>>> https://builds.apache.org/job/HBASE%20Nightly/job/HBASE-21512/279/testReport/ >>>>> > > > > (TestLogLevel will be fixed on your rebase/merge). >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > Poking through the PR, it looks like the big change is that >>>>> we're >>>>> > also >>>>> > > > > defaulting over to use the >>>>> [sync]ConnectionOverAsyncConnection. Good >>>>> > to >>>>> > > > > do it now to help iron things out more. Calling it out to make >>>>> sure >>>>> > > > > others see this. Is it still possible to use the old >>>>> Connection impl? >>>>> > > (I >>>>> > > > > think the answer is "no"). >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > No, all the code have been purged... >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > Only other question: are there updates for the book that should >>>>> > happen >>>>> > > > > before you move past this? What about "knobs" for configuring >>>>> > retries, >>>>> > > > > internal thread pool(s)? Anything like that you think would be >>>>> > > important >>>>> > > > > for people to tweak? >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > Will fill a 'fat' release note soon. I think there will be less >>>>> > > parameters >>>>> > > > to tune, as we do not need any thread pools unless you are using >>>>> > > > coprocessor related methods(which are deprecated and we >>>>> recommend users >>>>> > > to >>>>> > > > use the ones in async client interface). The retry config is >>>>> still the >>>>> > > same >>>>> > > > with the old sync client. >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > +1 >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > On 6/11/19 5:48 AM, 张铎(Duo Zhang) wrote: >>>>> > > > > > Filed https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-22564 >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > 张铎(Duo Zhang) <palomino...@gmail.com> 于2019年6月11日周二 >>>>> 下午3:53写道： >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > >> Let me do a YCSB test about the performance. >>>>> > > > > >> >>>>> > > > > >> Stack <st...@duboce.net> 于2019年6月11日周二 下午1:15写道： >>>>> > > > > >> >>>>> > > > > >>> +1 on merge from me. >>>>> > > > > >>> >>>>> > > > > >>> It removes the complicated multi-threaded edifice we'd >>>>> built >>>>> > > > > client-side >>>>> > > > > >>> to >>>>> > > > > >>> fake an async behavior replacing it with an actual async >>>>> > > > > implementation. >>>>> > > > > >>> Users will immediately notice a radical plummet in working >>>>> thread >>>>> > > > > count on >>>>> > > > > >>> the client side. >>>>> > > > > >>> >>>>> > > > > >>> For the cleanup of old idioms alone, in test code in >>>>> particular, >>>>> > > the >>>>> > > > > patch >>>>> > > > > >>> is worth merging. >>>>> > > > > >>> >>>>> > > > > >>> Any perf numbers to share comparing old sync and async? >>>>> > > > > >>> >>>>> > > > > >>> What about difference in operation? Is there any >>>>> commentary or >>>>> > doc >>>>> > > or >>>>> > > > > >>> release note to point at? >>>>> > > > > >>> >>>>> > > > > >>> Thanks, >>>>> > > > > >>> S >>>>> > > > > >>> >>>>> > > > > >>> >>>>> > > > > >>> >>>>> > > > > >>> On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 6:59 PM 张铎(Duo Zhang) < >>>>> > > palomino...@gmail.com >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>> wrote: >>>>> > > > > >>> >>>>> > > > > >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21512 >>>>> > > > > >>>> >>>>> > > > > >>>> "Reimplement sync client based on async client" >>>>> > > > > >>>> >>>>> > > > > >>>> The jira title tells everything. This is what I promised >>>>> when I >>>>> > > > first >>>>> > > > > >>>> introduced the async client in HBase, about three years >>>>> ago, >>>>> > that >>>>> > > > the >>>>> > > > > >>> sync >>>>> > > > > >>>> client can be implemented on top of the async client, so >>>>> we can >>>>> > > > remove >>>>> > > > > >>> the >>>>> > > > > >>>> old sync client implementation, which can reduce our >>>>> client code >>>>> > > > base >>>>> > > > > a >>>>> > > > > >>>> lot. >>>>> > > > > >>>> >>>>> > > > > >>>> I've already opened a PR here, and received several >>>>> > > feedback(thanks >>>>> > > > > >>> stack!) >>>>> > > > > >>>> >>>>> > > > > >>>> https://github.com/apache/hbase/pull/287 >>>>> > > > > >>>> >>>>> > > > > >>>> It shows that we add 8,663 lines and remove 31,386 lines. >>>>> > > > > >>>> >>>>> > > > > >>>> This is the flaky dashboard for this branch >>>>> > > > > >>>> >>>>> > > > > >>>> >>>>> > > > > >>>> >>>>> > > > > >>> >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > >>>>> https://builds.apache.org/job/HBASE-Find-Flaky-Tests/job/HBASE-21512/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/dashboard.html >>>>> > > > > >>>> >>>>> > > > > >>>> With the recent efforts I think it is getting better. >>>>> > > > > >>>> >>>>> > > > > >>>> Will fill the release note soon, it will be a fat one. >>>>> > > > > >>>> >>>>> > > > > >>>> Please vote >>>>> > > > > >>>> >>>>> > > > > >>>> [] +1 >>>>> > > > > >>>> [] +0/-0 >>>>> > > > > >>>> [] -1 Do not merge the branch back because ... >>>>> > > > > >>>> >>>>> > > > > >>>> Thanks. Any suggestions are welcomed. >>>>> > > > > >>>> >>>>> > > > > >>> >>>>> > > > > >> >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>
