[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-17959?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16013039#comment-16013039
]
Andrew Purtell commented on HBASE-17959:
----------------------------------------
Or just use a ConcurrentHashMap? Still not really necessary, just synchronize
access to the map?
{code}
+ private Map<String, AtomicLong> perTableReadWriteLatency = new HashMap<>();
{code}
This logging is unusual
{code}
+ LOG.error("-perTable Timeout: Read/Write operation for " +
tableName + " took " + actual +
+ " ms, which is longer than configured timeout of " +
configured + " ms.");
{code}
Since you are printing the configured value anyway, just mention the actual and
configured values in a unified message format. Easier to parse. I don't like
the '-perTable' thing, FWIW
Otherwise lgtm
> Canary timeout should be configurable on a per-table basis
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HBASE-17959
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-17959
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: canary
> Reporter: Andrew Purtell
> Assignee: Chinmay Kulkarni
> Priority: Minor
> Attachments: HBASE-17959.patch
>
>
> The Canary read and write timeouts should be configurable on a per-table
> basis, for cases where different tables have different latency SLAs.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.15#6346)
