[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-20952?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16602483#comment-16602483 ]
Sergey Soldatov commented on HBASE-20952: ----------------------------------------- bq. Will the old FB's hydrabase impl help here in determining the APIs needed here? If we are talking about HBASE-12259, than nope. Actually, most of the work for Hydrabase was made for the consensus protocol implementation and only a few attempts to apply that to the WAL system itself ( that were successfully dropped due to not accept for hbase-consensus module). We don't want to add our own implementation for quorum based consensus protocol. We want to make current WAL system flexible enough to build a new WAL implementation based whether on some 3rd party consensus protocol implementation (RAFT/Paxos/etc) or any existing Distributed Log implementations (Apache Kafka, Apache BookKeeper, etc). The interfaces should be simple with a meaningful public contract and the number of interfaces to implement should be reasonable as well. > Re-visit the WAL API > -------------------- > > Key: HBASE-20952 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-20952 > Project: HBase > Issue Type: Sub-task > Components: wal > Reporter: Josh Elser > Priority: Major > Attachments: 20952.v1.txt > > > Take a step back from the current WAL implementations and think about what an > HBase WAL API should look like. What are the primitive calls that we require > to guarantee durability of writes with a high degree of performance? > The API needs to take the current implementations into consideration. We > should also have a mind for what is happening in the Ratis LogService (but > the LogService should not dictate what HBase's WAL API looks like RATIS-272). > Other "systems" inside of HBase that use WALs are replication and > backup&restore. Replication has the use-case for "tail"'ing the WAL which we > should provide via our new API. B&R doesn't do anything fancy (IIRC). We > should make sure all consumers are generally going to be OK with the API we > create. > The API may be "OK" (or OK in a part). We need to also consider other methods > which were "bolted" on such as {{AbstractFSWAL}} and > {{WALFileLengthProvider}}. Other corners of "WAL use" (like the > {{WALSplitter}} should also be looked at to use WAL-APIs only). > We also need to make sure that adequate interface audience and stability > annotations are chosen. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)