Looks like the workload A issue was due to an incorrect recordcount
specified for 0.92 runs, as I asked for more details. AFAICT, 0.92 is
significantly faster than 0.90 on a 3 (hbase/hdfs) +1 (ycsb) node
cluster. Sorry for the noise and thanks for the great work :)
On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Luke Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Any update on the slowness of 0.92 especially for YCSB workload A
>> (50/50 read/write, which shows about 40% regression. A 15/85
>> read/write work load shows 60% regression)? 0.92 seem fine for pure
> Hey Luke:
> What did you test on? What was your cluster like? Unadorned YCSB?
> Can I have your commands? I'd like to repro.