[jira] Issue Comment Edited: (HBASE-1295) Federated HBase

["Andrew Purtell (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>]

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-1295?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12702647#action_12702647 ] 

Andrew Purtell edited comment on HBASE-1295 at 4/24/09 8:21 PM:
----------------------------------------------------------------

bq. In the case a cluster is down, I guess that would mean the other clusters would have to keep all the WALs until the it is up again. At that moment, it may receive tons of WALs right? 

Yes the effect of a partition and extended outage is a buildup of WALs on the peer clusters, and then a lot of backlog. Let me think about this case and post a revised slide deck.

bq. Also I was wondering, if you want to add a new cluster, would the way to go be replicating by hand (MR or else) all the data to the other cluster then telling somehow that the clusters have a new peer?

I was anticipating that the cluster would be advertised as a peer, somehow, and then replication would then start. The replicators should add tables and column families to their local schema on demand as the cells are received, maybe additionally also ask the peer about schema details as necessary. Updates to HTD and HCD attributes can be considered another type of edit. Whether or not to bring over existing data would be a deployment/application concern I think and could be handed by a MR export-import job. 

      was (Author: apurtell):
    bq. In the case a cluster is down, I guess that would mean the other clusters would have to keep all the WALs until the it is up again. At that moment, it may receive tons of WALs right? 

Yes the effect of a partition and extended outage is a buildup of WALs on the peer clusters, and then a lot of backlog. Let me think about this case and post a revised slide deck.

bq. Also I was wondering, if you want to add a new cluster, would the way to go be replicating by hand (MR or else) all the data to the other cluster then telling somehow that the clusters have a new peer?

I was anticipating that the cluster would be advertised as a peer, somehow, and then replication would then start. The replicators should add tables and column families to their local schema on demand as the cells are received, maybe additionally also ask the peer about column family details as necessary. Whether or not to bring over existing data would be a deployment/application concern I think and could be handed by a MR export-import job. 
  
> Federated HBase
> ---------------
>
>                 Key: HBASE-1295
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-1295
>             Project: Hadoop HBase
>          Issue Type: New Feature
>            Reporter: Andrew Purtell
>         Attachments: hbase_repl.1.pdf
>
>
> HBase should consider supporting a federated deployment where someone might have terascale (or beyond) clusters in more than one geography and would want the system to handle replication between the clusters/regions. It would be sweet if HBase had something on the roadmap to sync between replicas out of the box. 
> Consider if rows, columns, or even cells could be scoped: local, or global.
> Then, consider a background task on each cluster that replicates new globally scoped edits to peer clusters. The HBase/Bigtable data model has convenient features (timestamps, multiversioning) such that simple exchange of globally scoped cells would be conflict free and would "just work". Implementation effort here would be in producing an efficient mechanism for collecting up edits from all the HRS and transmitting the edits over the network to peers where they would then be split out to the HRS there. Holding on to the edit trace and tracking it until the remote commits succeed would also be necessary. So, HLog is probably the right place to set up the tee. This would be filtered log shipping, basically.  
> This proposal does not consider transactional tables. For transactional tables, enforcement of global mutation commit ordering would come into the picture if the user  wants the  transaction to span the federation. This should be an optional feature even with transactional tables themselves being optional because of how slow it would be.

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.