Stack 2012-08-30, 22:04
Cristofer Weber 2012-08-30, 13:27
Dave Wang 2012-08-30, 13:49
Andrew Purtell 2012-08-30, 16:20
Andrew Purtell 2012-08-30, 16:41
lars hofhansl 2012-08-30, 16:49
-Re: [maybe off-topic?] article: Solving Big Data Challenges for Enterprise Application Performance Management
Andrew Purtell 2012-08-30, 21:41
I do want to take a closer look at it. Not with the intent to replace the
PB RPC with it but its odd to have two RPC stacks. What refactoring and
code simplification/removal opportunities are here? Don't know (yet). More
generally, to experiment with simple native async clients.
On Thursday, August 30, 2012, lars hofhansl wrote:
> 0.94+ has the option to run a thrift-server-thread inside the
> RegionServers. Maybe we should improve upon that?
> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 9:41 AM
> Subject: Re: [maybe off-topic?] article: Solving Big Data Challenges for
> Enterprise Application Performance Management
> Just want to clarify I mean experimenting with the approach of the Thrift
> client work not use of Thrift particularly.
> On Thursday, August 30, 2012, Andrew Purtell wrote:
> > This paper could very well have benchmarked the relative performance of
> > the YCSB drivers. Some take aways for me here are:
> > - Cluster setup is too difficult still
> > - There are opportunities for autotuning that would make it easier
> > users to get it right the first time and for academics and casual
> > benchmarkers alike to get a good result without becoming experts with
> > configuration
> > - The client library has been evolving toward fully async dispatch,
> > should focus on this, perhaps even consider reimplementing sync client
> on a
> > refactored async core. And look at making the Thrift based stuff FB put
> > front and center, because then native clients are possible.
> > - Given the above client work, the YCSB HBase driver should have a
> > rewrite.
> > > wrote:
> >> My reading of the paper is that they are actually not clear about
> >> or not HMasters were deployed on datanodes.
> >> I'm going to guess that they just used default configurations for HBase
> >> and
> >> YCSB, but the paper again is not specific enough.
> >> Why were they using 0.90.4 in 2012? Would have been nice to see some of
> >> the more recent work done in the area of performance.
> >> One thing the paper does touch on is the relative difficulty of standing
> >> up
> >> the cluster, which has not changed since 0.90.4. I think that's
> >> definitely
> >> something that could be improved upon.
> >> - Dave
> >> On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 6:27 AM, Cristofer Weber <
> >> > Just read this article, "Solving Big Data Challenges for Enterprise
> >> > Application Performance Management." published this month @ Volume 5,
> >> No.12
> >> > of Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment, where they measured 6 different
> >> > databases - Project Voldemort, Redis, HBase, Cassandra, MySQL Cluster
> >> and
> >> > VoltDB - with YCSB on two different kind of clusters, Memory-bound and
> >> > Disk-bound, and I'm in doubt about results for HBase since:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > * HBase version was 0.90.4
> >> >
> >> > * Master nodes were deployed together with data nodes
> >> >
> >> > * They didn't reported tuning parameters
> >> >
> >> > There's also a paragraph where they reported that HBase failed
> >> frequently
> >> > in non-deterministic ways while running YCSB.
> >> >
> >> > My intention with this e-mail is to look for opinions from you, who
> >> > more experienced with HBase, on where this experiment's setup could be
> >> > changed to improve read operations, since in this setup HBase did not
> >> > performed as well as Cassandra and Project Voldemort.
Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
(via Tom White)
lars hofhansl 2012-08-30, 22:01
Andrew Purtell 2012-08-31, 13:48
Jean-Daniel Cryans 2012-08-30, 14:01
Stack 2012-08-30, 23:45