[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-17959?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16014961#comment-16014961
]
Chinmay Kulkarni commented on HBASE-17959:
------------------------------------------
[~apurtell]
Thanks for your comments! I have a follow-up question:
I chose to use a _HashMap<String, AtomicLong>_ instead of a
_ConcurrentHashMap_ since we don't really need hashmap bucket-level locking,
as we are only concurrently modifying the values corresponding to keys in the
hashmap.
Using a _ConcurrentHashMap_ could lead to an unnecessarily increased locking
granularity since multiple tables (the String keys) could be in the same
bucket. Synchronizing access to the whole map itself would lead to even more
lock contention.
What are your views on this?
I will change the logging message for the actual and configured timeouts.
Thanks.
> 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)
