[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-13260?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14514771#comment-14514771
]
Enis Soztutar commented on HBASE-13260:
---------------------------------------
Agreed with Matteo that I think we should commit this with or without replacing
the WAL based proc store. The original motivation was to re-use region + WAL
for dogfooding. Proc store and region server groups are the first candidates.
The benefit of using the region internals and WAL is that it is well tested
code and there should not be any reason to reinvent the wheel. We had to fix at
least a couple of issues already in this code (see this issue and other
threads) and honestly it is a bit scary. We can of course get it tested well
enough and supported, but the question is why do we support yet another WAL
format? Once we introduce it, we probably have to support it for life.
Agreed that the drawback is that doing proc-specific optimizations will be much
harder (if at all possible) and there is the memstore + flush overhead. We can
benefit from the region internals in get / scan kind of API. I did not see an
order of magnitude difference, it was the other way around before we discovered
HBASE-13529. Let me verify with the latest code.
> Bootstrap Tables for fun and profit
> ------------------------------------
>
> Key: HBASE-13260
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-13260
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: Bug
> Reporter: Enis Soztutar
> Assignee: Enis Soztutar
> Fix For: 2.0.0, 1.1.0
>
> Attachments: hbase-13260_bench.patch, hbase-13260_prototype.patch
>
>
> Over at the ProcV2 discussions(HBASE-12439) and elsewhere I was mentioning an
> idea where we may want to use regular old regions to store/persist some data
> needed for HBase master to operate.
> We regularly use system tables for storing system data. acl, meta, namespace,
> quota are some examples. We also store the table state in meta now. Some data
> is persisted in zk only (replication peers and replication state, etc). We
> are moving away from zk as a permanent storage. As any self-respecting
> database does, we should store almost all of our data in HBase itself.
> However, we have an "availability" dependency between different kinds of
> data. For example all system tables need meta to be assigned first. All
> master operations need ns table to be assigned, etc.
> For at least two types of data, (1) procedure v2 states, (2) RS groups in
> HBASE-6721 we cannot depend on meta being assigned since "assignment" itself
> will depend on accessing this data. The solution in (1) is to implement a
> custom WAL format, and custom recover lease and WAL recovery. The solution in
> (2) is to have the table to store this data, but also cache it in zk for
> bootrapping initial assignments.
> For solving both of the above (and possible future use cases if any), I
> propose we add a "boostrap table" concept, which is:
> - A set of predefined tables hosted in a separate dir in HDFS.
> - A table is only 1 region, not splittable
> - Not assigned through regular assignment
> - Hosted only on 1 server (typically master)
> - Has a dedicated WAL.
> - A service does WAL recovery + fencing for these tables.
> This has the benefit of using a region to keep the data, but frees us to
> re-implement caching and we can use the same WAL / Memstore / Recovery
> mechanisms that are battle-tested.
>
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
