[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-16195?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15370745#comment-15370745
]
Yu Li commented on HBASE-16195:
-------------------------------
bq. The hard limit is the blocking flush size which defaults to 4 times the
flush size.
I agree that blockingFlushSize/chunkSize is a better default value, but I still
think it's dangerous to have an unlimited queue here. :-)
bq. Both these jiras part of single bug. So any one backporting this has to
take both.
Sorry I don't quite catch you on this sir. Even w/o limiting the chunk queue
size, we still need to fix the part that chunk is put into queue when no pool
specified, right? So user still need to backport both to thoroughly resolve the
problem mentioned in HBASE-16193, I guess?
> Should not add chunk into chunkQueue if not using chunk pool in
> HeapMemStoreLAB
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HBASE-16195
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-16195
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Reporter: Yu Li
> Assignee: Yu Li
> Attachments: HBASE-16195.patch, HBASE-16195_v2.patch,
> HBASE-16195_v3.patch
>
>
> Problem description and analysis please refer to HBASE-16193
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
