hbase-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Anoop John <anoop.hb...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Coprocessor end point vs MapReduce?
Date Thu, 25 Oct 2012 17:13:37 GMT
>What I still don’t understand is, since both CP and MR are both
>running on the region side, with is the MR better than the CP?
For the case bulk delete alone CP (Endpoint) will be better than MR for
sure..  Considering your over all need people were suggesting better MR..
U need a scan and move some data into another table too...
Both MR and CP run on the region side ???  - Well there is difference. The
CP run within your RS process itself.. So that is why bulk delete using
Endpoint is efficient..  It is a local read and delete. No n/w calls
involved at all..  But in case of MR even if the mappers run on the same
machine as that of the region it is a inter process communication..
Hope I explained you the diff well...

-Anoop-

On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 6:31 PM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari <
jean-marc@spaggiari.org> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> First, sorry about my slowness to reply to this thread, but it went to
> my spam folder and I lost sight of it.
>
> I don’t have good knowledge of RDBMS, and so I don’t have good
> knowledge of triggers too. That’s why I looked at the endpoints too
> because they are pretty new for me.
>
> First, I can’t really use multiple tables. I have one process writing
> to this table barely real-time. Another one is deleting from this
> table too. But some rows are never deleted. They are timing out, and
> need to be moved by the process I’m building here.
>
> I was not aware of the possibility to setup the priority for an MR job
> (any link to show how?). That’s something I will dig into. I was a bit
> scared about the network load if I’m doing deletes lines by lines and
> not bulk.
>
> What I still don’t understand is, since both CP and MR are both
> running on the region side, with is the MR better than the CP? Because
> the hadoop framework is taking care of it and will guarantee that it
> will run on all the regions?
>
> Also, is there some sort of “pre” and “post” methods I can override
> for MR jobs to initially list of puts/deletes and submit them at the
> end? Or should I do that one by one on the map method?
>
> Thanks,
>
> JM
>
>
> 2012/10/18, lohit <lohit.vijayarenu@gmail.com>:
> > I might be little off here. If rows are moved to another table on weekly
> or
> > daily basis, why not create per weekly or per day table.
> > That way you need to copy and delete. Of course it will not work you are
> > are selectively filtering between timestamps and clients have to have
> > notion of multiple tables.
> >
> > 2012/10/18 Anoop Sam John <anoopsj@huawei.com>
> >
> >> A CP and Endpoints operates at a region level.. Any operation within one
> >> region we can perform using this..  I have seen in below use case that
> >> along with the delete there was a need for inserting data to some other
> >> table also.. Also this was kind of a periodic action.. I really doubt
> how
> >> the endpoints alone can be used here.. I also tend towards the MR..
> >>
> >>   The idea behind the bulk delete CP is simple.  We have a use case of
> >> deleting a bulk of rows and this need to be online delete. I also have
> >> seen
> >> in the mailing list many people ask question regarding that... In all
> >> people were using scans and get the rowkeys to the client side and then
> >> doing the deletes..  Yes most of the time complaint was the slowness..
> >> One
> >> bulk delete performance improvement was done in HBASE-6284..  Still
> >> thought
> >> we can do all the operation (scan+delete) in server side and we can make
> >> use of the endpoints here.. This will be much more faster and can be
> used
> >> for online bulk deletes..
> >>
> >> -Anoop-
> >>
> >> ________________________________________
> >> From: Michael Segel [michael_segel@hotmail.com]
> >> Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 11:31 PM
> >> To: user@hbase.apache.org
> >> Subject: Re: Coprocessor end point vs MapReduce?
> >>
> >> Doug,
> >>
> >> One thing that concerns me is that a lot of folks are gravitating to
> >> Coprocessors and may be using them for the wrong thing.
> >> Has anyone done any sort of research as to some of the limitations and
> >> negative impacts on using coprocessors?
> >>
> >> While I haven't really toyed with the idea of bulk deletes, periodic
> >> deletes is probably not a good use of coprocessors.... however using
> them
> >> to synchronize tables would be a valid use case.
> >>
> >> Thx
> >>
> >> -Mike
> >>
> >> On Oct 18, 2012, at 7:36 AM, Doug Meil <doug.meil@explorysmedical.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > To echo what Mike said about KISS, would you use triggers for a large
> >> > time-sensitive batch job in an RDBMS?  It's possible, but probably
> not.
> >> > Then you might want to think twice about using co-processors for such
> a
> >> > purpose with HBase.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On 10/17/12 9:50 PM, "Michael Segel" <michael_segel@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Run your weekly job in a low priority fair scheduler/capacity
> >> >> scheduler
> >> >> queue.
> >> >>
> >> >> Maybe its just me, but I look at Coprocessors as a similar structure
> >> >> to
> >> >> RDBMS triggers and stored procedures.
> >> >> You need to restrain and use them sparingly otherwise you end up
> >> creating
> >> >> performance issues.
> >> >>
> >> >> Just IMHO.
> >> >>
> >> >> -Mike
> >> >>
> >> >> On Oct 17, 2012, at 8:44 PM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari
> >> >> <jean-marc@spaggiari.org> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> I don't have any concern about the time it's taking. It's more
about
> >> >>> the load it's putting on the cluster. I have other jobs that I
need
> >> >>> to
> >> >>> run (secondary index, data processing, etc.). So the more time
this
> >> >>> new job is taking, the less CPU the others will have.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I tried the M/R and I really liked the way it's done. So my only
> >> >>> concern will really be the performance of the delete part.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> That's why I'm wondering what's the best practice to move a row
to
> >> >>> another table.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> 2012/10/17, Michael Segel <michael_segel@hotmail.com>:
> >> >>>> If you're going to be running this weekly, I would suggest
that you
> >> >>>> stick
> >> >>>> with the M/R job.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Is there any reason why you need to be worried about the time
it
> >> >>>> takes
> >> >>>> to do
> >> >>>> the deletes?
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> On Oct 17, 2012, at 8:19 PM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari
> >> >>>> <jean-marc@spaggiari.org>
> >> >>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>> Hi Mike,
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> I'm expecting to run the job weekly. I initially thought
about
> >> >>>>> using
> >> >>>>> end points because I found HBASE-6942 which was a good
example for
> >> >>>>> my
> >> >>>>> needs.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> I'm fine with the Put part for the Map/Reduce, but I'm
not sure
> >> >>>>> about
> >> >>>>> the delete. That's why I look at coprocessors. Then I figure
that
> I
> >> >>>>> also can do the Put on the coprocessor side.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> On a M/R, can I delete the row I'm dealing with based on
some
> >> criteria
> >> >>>>> like timestamp? If I do that, I will not do bulk deletes,
but I
> >> >>>>> will
> >> >>>>> delete the rows one by one, right? Which might be very
slow.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> If in the future I want to run the job daily, might that
be an
> >> >>>>> issue?
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Or should I go with the initial idea of doing the Put with
the M/R
> >> job
> >> >>>>> and the delete with HBASE-6942?
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Thanks,
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> JM
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> 2012/10/17, Michael Segel <michael_segel@hotmail.com>:
> >> >>>>>> Hi,
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> I'm a firm believer in KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid)
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> The Map/Reduce (map job only) is the simplest and least
prone to
> >> >>>>>> failure.
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> Not sure why you would want to do this using coprocessors.
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> How often are you running this job? It sounds like
its going to
> be
> >> >>>>>> sporadic.
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> -Mike
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> On Oct 17, 2012, at 7:11 PM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari
> >> >>>>>> <jean-marc@spaggiari.org>
> >> >>>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> Hi,
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> Can someone please help me to understand the pros
and cons
> >> >>>>>>> between
> >> >>>>>>> those 2 options for the following usecase?
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> I need to transfer all the rows between 2 timestamps
to another
> >> >>>>>>> table.
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> My first idea was to run a MapReduce to map the
rows and store
> >> >>>>>>> them
> >> >>>>>>> on
> >> >>>>>>> another table, and then delete them using an end
point
> >> >>>>>>> coprocessor.
> >> >>>>>>> But the more I look into it, the more I think the
MapReduce is
> >> >>>>>>> not
> >> a
> >> >>>>>>> good idea and I should use a coprocessor instead.
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> BUT... The MapReduce framework guarantee me that
it will run
> >> against
> >> >>>>>>> all the regions. I tried to stop a regionserver
while the job
> was
> >> >>>>>>> running. The region moved, and the MapReduce restarted
the job
> >> >>>>>>> from
> >> >>>>>>> the new location. Will the coprocessor do the same
thing?
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> Also, I found the webconsole for the MapReduce
with the number
> of
> >> >>>>>>> jobs, the status, etc. Is there the same thing
with the
> >> >>>>>>> coprocessors?
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> Are all coprocessors running at the same time on
all regions,
> >> >>>>>>> which
> >> >>>>>>> mean we can have 100 of them running on a regionserver
at a
> time?
> >> Or
> >> >>>>>>> are they running like the MapReduce jobs based
on some
> configured
> >> >>>>>>> values?
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> Thanks,
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> JM
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Have a Nice Day!
> > Lohit
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message