[jira] [Updated] (HBASE-17110) Improve SimpleLoadBalancer to consider server level balance

["Yu Li (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>]

     [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-17110?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]

Yu Li updated HBASE-17110:
--------------------------
    Summary: Improve SimpleLoadBalancer to consider server level balance  (was: Add an "Overall Strategy" option(balanced both on table level and server level) to SimpleLoadBalancer)

> Improve SimpleLoadBalancer to consider server level balance
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: HBASE-17110
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-17110
>             Project: HBase
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: Balancer
>    Affects Versions: 2.0.0, 1.2.4
>            Reporter: Charlie Qiangeng Xu
>            Assignee: Charlie Qiangeng Xu
>         Attachments: HBASE-17110-V2.patch, HBASE-17110-V3.patch, HBASE-17110-V4.patch, HBASE-17110-V5.patch, HBASE-17110-V6.patch, HBASE-17110-V7.patch, HBASE-17110-V8.patch, HBASE-17110.patch
>
>
> This jira is about an enhancement of simpleLoadBalancer. Here we introduce a new strategy: "bytableOverall" which could be controlled by adding:
> {noformat}
> <property>
>   <name>hbase.master.loadbalance.bytableOverall</name>
>   <value>true</value>
> </property>
> {noformat}
> We have been using the strategy on our largest cluster for several months. it's proven to be very helpful and stable, especially, the result is quite visible to the users.
> Here is the reason why it's helpful:
> When operating large scale clusters(our case), some companies still prefer to use {{SimpleLoadBalancer}} due to its simplicity, quick balance plan generation, etc. Current SimpleLoadBalancer has two modes: 
> 1. byTable, which only guarantees that the regions of one table could be uniformly distributed. 
> 2. byCluster, which ignores the distribution within tables and balance the regions all together.
> If the pressures on different tables are different, the first byTable option is the preferable one in most case. Yet, this choice sacrifice the cluster level balance and would cause some servers to have significantly higher load, e.g. 242 regions on server A but 417 regions on server B.(real world stats)
> Consider this case,  a cluster has 3 tables and 4 servers:
> {noformat}
>   server A has 3 regions: table1:1, table2:1, table3:1
>   server B has 3 regions: table1:2, table2:2, table3:2
>   server C has 3 regions: table1:3, table2:3, table3:3
>   server D has 0 regions.
> {noformat}
> From the byTable strategy's perspective, the cluster has already been perfectly balanced on table level. But a perfect status should be like:
> {noformat}
>   server A has 2 regions: table2:1, table3:1
>   server B has 2 regions: table1:2, table3:2
>   server C has 3 regions: table1:3, table2:3, table3:3
>   server D has 2 regions: table1:1, table2:2
> {noformat}
> We can see the server loads change from 3,3,3,0 to 2,2,3,2, while the table1, table2 and table3 still keep balanced.   
> And this is what the new mode "byTableOverall" can achieve.
> Two UTs have been added as well and the last one demonstrates the advantage of the new strategy.
> Also, a onConfigurationChange method has been implemented to hot control the "slop" variable.
>  



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)