Type: New Feature
Affects Version/s: None
Fix Version/s: None
Where HBase coprocessors deviate substantially from the design (as I understand it) of Google's BigTable coprocessors is we've reimagined it as a framework for internal extension. In contrast BigTable coprocessors run as separate processes colocated with tablet servers. The essential trade off is between performance, flexibility and possibility, and the ability to control and enforce resource usage.
Since the initial design of HBase coprocessors some additional considerations are in play:
- Developing computational frameworks sitting directly on top of HBase hosted in coprocessor(s);
- Introduction of the map reduce next generation (mrng) resource management model, and the probability that limits will be enforced via cgroups at the OS level after this is generally available, e.g. when RHEL 6 deployments are common;
- The possibility of deployment of HBase onto mrng-enabled Hadoop clusters via the mrng resource manager and a HBase-specific application controller.
Therefore we should consider developing a coprocessor that is a generic host for another coprocessor, but one that forks a child process, loads the target coprocessor into the child, establishes a bidirectional pipe and uses an eventing model and umbilical protocol to provide for the coprocessor loaded into the child the same semantics as if it was loaded internally to the parent, and (eventually) use available resource management capabilities on the platform – perhaps via the mrng resource controller or directly with cgroups – to limit the child as desired by system administrators or the application designer.