On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 10:03 AM, Vidhyashankar Venkataraman < [email protected]> wrote:
> >> Even without the TTL expiration being applied, I think I've heard of > this in other cases where a very > >> restrictive filter was used on a large table scan. > Thanks, I was about to say that in a follow-up mail! We use a filter to > scan records, produce a list of delete records and bulk load them back to > HBase. And the same problem will exist even in that case. > > And in response to JD's suggestions, this problem 'might' be related > (mid-way I see JD's comment on scanner timeouts during GCs which is quite > analogous to the problem that I had pointed out): I can't quite pinpoint > exactly what the bug tries to address and if any fix has come out of it. JD, > can you let me know the status of the JIRA? > > Thank you > V > > In follow up to my earlier comment on periodically renewing the lease, I suppose in the case of a 60+ second GC pause this won't be sufficient and we'd still timeout. So maybe we do need a better solution. It would address just the data filtering issue though. So it could be an improvement over what we currently have. >From HBASE-2077, the idea of multiple simultaneous RPC calls in to the same scanner (and hence the need for ref counting instead of simple boolean or state) does seem a bit odd though? Would this be needed for a future parallel scanner implementation? Or do we have any clear cases where this is currently used? --gh
