Details

    • Type: New Feature New Feature
    • Status: Resolved
    • Priority: Major Major
    • Resolution: Won't Fix
    • Affects Version/s: None
    • Fix Version/s: None
    • Component/s: None
    • Labels:
      None

      Description

      Currently we have a simple QOS model where requests to user tables are using one set of handlers and requests to catalog tables and other administrative functions are using another set. I'm wondering if it's worth expending this model:

      • Do we want to support different priorities for different tables/users (when security's enabled)/operations?
      • Do we want finer granularity?

      There's also issues like HBASE-4280 that exposes a case where RS communicate between each other and can potentially deadlock if some slowness is going on.

        Activity

        Transition Time In Source Status Execution Times Last Executer Last Execution Date
        Open Open Resolved Resolved
        1432d 8h 14m 1 stack 22/Aug/15 03:06
        stack made changes -
        Status Open [ 1 ] Resolved [ 5 ]
        Resolution Won't Fix [ 2 ]
        Hide
        stack added a comment -

        This is old. We have some prioritization going on now based off annotations, whether system table, type of request... (if superuser)....

        Show
        stack added a comment - This is old. We have some prioritization going on now based off annotations, whether system table, type of request... (if superuser)....
        stack made changes -
        Fix Version/s 0.95.0 [ 12324094 ]
        Hide
        stack added a comment -

        Moving unassigned feature out of 0.95

        Show
        stack added a comment - Moving unassigned feature out of 0.95
        Lars Hofhansl made changes -
        Fix Version/s 0.94.0 [ 12316419 ]
        Lars Hofhansl made changes -
        Fix Version/s 0.94.0 [ 12316419 ]
        stack made changes -
        Fix Version/s 0.95.0 [ 12324094 ]
        Fix Version/s 0.96.0 [ 12320040 ]
        Lars Hofhansl made changes -
        Field Original Value New Value
        Fix Version/s 0.96.0 [ 12320040 ]
        Fix Version/s 0.94.0 [ 12316419 ]
        Hide
        Lars Hofhansl added a comment -

        Moving out of 0.94.

        Show
        Lars Hofhansl added a comment - Moving out of 0.94.
        Hide
        Andrew Purtell added a comment -

        Do we want to support different priorities for different tables/users (when security's enabled)/operations?

        I've been thinking about this lately too. I think we do. For managing policy that maps pretty well to security (users and groups), hierarchical token bucket could be a reasonable option.

        Admission control across the whole cluster is a larger challenge. How does QoS at the HBase layer translate to QoS at the HDFS layer (or not)? Should accesses from a MapReduce job have a different priority than direct API access?

        Show
        Andrew Purtell added a comment - Do we want to support different priorities for different tables/users (when security's enabled)/operations? I've been thinking about this lately too. I think we do. For managing policy that maps pretty well to security (users and groups), hierarchical token bucket could be a reasonable option. Admission control across the whole cluster is a larger challenge. How does QoS at the HBase layer translate to QoS at the HDFS layer (or not)? Should accesses from a MapReduce job have a different priority than direct API access?
        Jean-Daniel Cryans created issue -

          People

          • Assignee:
            Unassigned
            Reporter:
            Jean-Daniel Cryans
          • Votes:
            0 Vote for this issue
            Watchers:
            6 Start watching this issue

            Dates

            • Created:
              Updated:
              Resolved:

              Development