[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-10528?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14266806#comment-14266806
]
Hudson commented on HBASE-10528:
--------------------------------
FAILURE: Integrated in HBase-1.1 #63 (See
[https://builds.apache.org/job/HBase-1.1/63/])
HBASE-10528 DefaultBalancer selects plans to move regions onto draining nodes
(Churro Morales) (tedyu: rev c5b0a1b8a0a7db7c48473b8f3867146abfe076c1)
*
hbase-server/src/test/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/master/TestRegionStates.java
* hbase-server/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/master/RegionStates.java
> DefaultBalancer selects plans to move regions onto draining nodes
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HBASE-10528
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-10528
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: Bug
> Affects Versions: 0.94.5
> Reporter: churro morales
> Assignee: churro morales
> Fix For: 2.0.0, 0.98.10, 1.1.0, 0.94.27
>
> Attachments: HBASE-10528-0.94.patch, HBASE-10528-0.98.patch,
> HBASE-10528.patch, HBASE-10528.v2.patch
>
>
> We have quite a large cluster > 100k regions, and we needed to isolate a
> region was very hot until we could push a patch. We put this region on its
> own regionserver and set it in the draining state. The default balancer was
> selecting regions to move to this cluster for its region plans.
> It just so happened for other tables, the default load balancer was creating
> plans for the draining servers, even though they were not available to move
> regions to. Thus we were closing regions, then attempting to move them to
> the draining server then finding out its draining.
> We had to disable the balancer to resolve this issue.
> There are some approaches we can take here.
> 1. Exclude draining servers altogether, don't even pass those into the load
> balancer from HMaster.
> 2. We could exclude draining servers from ceiling and floor calculations
> where we could potentially skip load balancing because those draining servers
> wont be represented when deciding whether to balance.
> 3. Along with #2 when assigning regions, we would skip plans to assign
> regions to those draining servers.
> I am in favor of #1 which is simply removes servers as candidates for
> balancing if they are in the draining state.
> But I would love to hear what everyone else thinks.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
