[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-11610?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14103000#comment-14103000
]
Virag Kothari commented on HBASE-11610:
---------------------------------------
Thanks for the review.
Based on general feedback here, I will remove the ThreadLocalHtable. Creating a
htable for each put might produce more garbage, but guess that should be fine
given that htable is lightweight. We can still have multiple HConnections to
have a higher write throughput, but can get a HTable instance for a connection
picked randomly. I hope this works for you guys?
Will do a performance run to check the memory utilization and see if there is
any performance degradation with this approach.
bq. I'm not a big fan of the ThreadLocal<HTableInterface> threadLocalHTable.
It's often difficult to maintain and test.
Agree its difficult to debug threadlocal issues.
As you said that HConnection.processBatchCallback() is deprecated, so am not
very inclined to use that. Also, this method seems to be more helpful if there
is a batch of Puts.
Will address Stack's comments of changing the config name, separating the
connection setup part in a different utility class and adding more
docs/comments.
bq. i.e. when would hConnectionPool be null?
This is only during test cases when meta remains no longer on master. This
scenario is explained in the comment few lines above.
> Enhance remote meta updates
> ---------------------------
>
> Key: HBASE-11610
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-11610
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Reporter: Jimmy Xiang
> Assignee: Virag Kothari
> Attachments: HBASE-11610.patch
>
>
> Currently, if the meta region is on a regionserver instead of the master,
> meta update is synchronized on one HTable instance. We should be able to do
> better.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)
