[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21917?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16771601#comment-16771601
]
Zheng Hu commented on HBASE-21917:
----------------------------------
bq. If we could bring it local we could use it in meantime while worked on
changing access downstream
Got your mind, thanks [~stack]. but I'm worrying that after we bring those
native checksum methods into hbase, those methods can still only accept
ByteBuffer or byte[] ( data&checksum ) arguments, so we may need to copy few
bytes from ByteBuff (NOT nio.ByteBuffer) each time to update the checksum and
the heavy native cost happen(as you said before). Another way will be: verify
16KB data each time, no native call cost but the young gc issue may still
exists.
So I prefer to keep the current general small byte[] checksum updating in
patch.v4.
> Make the HFileBlock#validateChecksum can accept ByteBuff as an input.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HBASE-21917
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21917
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Reporter: Zheng Hu
> Assignee: Zheng Hu
> Priority: Major
> Attachments: HBASE-21917.v1.patch, HBASE-21917.v2.patch,
> HBASE-21917.v3.patch, HBASE-21917.v4.patch
>
>
> I've tried to make a patch for HBASE-21879, most of work seems to be fine,
> but the trouble is:
> HFileBlock#validateChecksum can only accept ByteBuffer as its input, while
> after the HBASE-21916, we will use an ourself-defined ByteBuff (which can be
> SingleByteBuff or MultiByteBuff).
> Now, need to create our own ByteBuff checksum validation method, should not
> be so hard but an separate issue will be more clearer.
>
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
