As a general comment for 0.94 vs 0.96 testing... Please always make sure we are testing against the same default options.
In 0.96 we increased the default blockCache, enabled scanner caching, disabled Nagle's, increased the handler count, etc.
In order to compare apples to apples we should always add the following config options to 0.94 (in hbase-site.xml)
hbase.regionserver.global.memstore.lowerLimit = 0.38
hfile.block.cache.size = 0.4
hbase.ipc.client.tcpnodelay = true
hbase.regionserver.handler.count = 30
hbase.client.scanner.caching = 100
There might be more, but these are obvious ones.
From: Jerry He <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: dev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2013 2:09 PM
Subject: Re: HBase 0.96.0 performace
Do you have the slides?
I don't have the full slides. The image was passed to me by a co-worker in
China. We are evaluating it.
I am copying the numbers below:
Release 3 YCSB clients (puts/seconds) 5 YCSB clients
0.94.14 178K 220K
0.96.0 20K 15K
0.96.1 173K 168K
Release 10 YCSB clients (reads/seconds) 25 YCSB clients
0.94.14 50K 52K
0.96.0 23K 23K
0.96.1 52K 54K
On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Where did you obtain the picture ?
> If you got it from slides posted on China Hadoop Summit website, can you
> share the link ?
> On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 3:55 AM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The picture didn't go through.
> > Correction: the comparison between hbase 0.96.0 and 0.96.1 was done by
> > Nicolas Liochon. This was not done at EBay.
> > In my talk, there was another comparison to show that MTTR improved a lot
> > from 0.94 to 0.96 - this was done at EBay.
> > When Stack cuts 0.96.1 RC0, you would get the list of JIRAs that
> > contributed to the speedup from 0.96.0 to 0.96.1
> > Cheers
> > On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 3:50 AM, Jerry He <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Hi, Ted, and hbase experts
> >> Below picture is a performance comparison between hbase 0.96.0 and
> >> 0.96.1, shared by Ted Yu in China Hadoop Summit today. This perf
> testing is
> >> said to be executed on ebay's real cluster.
> >> It is surprising 0.96.0 is such worse compared to 0.96.1 and even
> >> 0.94.14. Are these numbers official and the performance degradation
> >> What patch in 0.96.1 fixed this?