I thought I heard Aaron volunteering ;)
On Feb 13, 2012, at 16:58, Keith Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think its a good idea, but who is going to take the time to do it?
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 4:42 PM, Joey Echeverria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I think benchmarks are interesting and useful, but they're not the whole
>> story. If we can collaborate with the Hypertable testing, that'd be best as
>> it should avoid getting into a benchmark shoot out where each community
>> feels compelled to one-up the other.
>> On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 4:07 PM, Aaron Cordova <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> so .. we all know that benchmarks can be misleading but ...
>>> There seems to be some excitement surrounding the recent Hypertable vs
>>> Hbase benchmark, particularly because hbase (0.90) failed to complete some
>>> tests, and because the tests seem to be based on those outlined in the
>>> original BigTable paper.
>>> Hypertable has stated (on Twitter) that they're going to re-run the
>>> benchmark on Hbase 0.92, and that they hope for participation from Hbase. I
>>> wondered whether it would be in the Accumulo community's interest to
>>> participate as well?
>>> I believe that because Accumulo uses native management of memory for it's
>>> ingest operations that it won't have the same problem Hbase 0.90 did with
>>> the tests involving lots of small (10k and 100k) inserts. We know that
>>> Accumulo stands apart somewhat because of it's unique features, but
>>> performance could be an important differentiator too, or at least should not
>>> be a weakness ...
>> Joseph Echeverria
>> Cloudera, Inc.