Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
NEW: Monitor These Apps!
elasticsearch, apache solr, apache hbase, hadoop, redis, casssandra, amazon cloudwatch, mysql, memcached, apache kafka, apache zookeeper, apache storm, ubuntu, centOS, red hat, debian, puppet labs, java, senseiDB
 Search Hadoop and all its subprojects:

Switch to Threaded View
HBase >> mail # dev >> Early comparisons between 0.90 and 0.92


Copy link to this message
-
Re: Early comparisons between 0.90 and 0.92
260k random reads per second is a lot... is that on one node?  how many
client threads?  and is the client going over the network, is it on the
datanode, or are you using a specialized test where they're in the same
process?
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Lars <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Do you see the same slowdown with the default 64k block size?
>
> Lars <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
>
> >I'll be busy today... I'll double check my scanning related changes as
> soon as i can.
> >
> >Jean-Daniel Cryans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> >
> >>Yes and yes.
> >>
> >>J-D
> >>On Dec 14, 2011 5:52 PM, "Matt Corgan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Regions are major compacted and have empty memstores, so no merging of
> >>> stores when reading?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 2011/12/14 Jean-Daniel Cryans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>>
> >>> > Yes sorry 1.1M
> >>> >
> >>> > This is PE, the table is set to a block size of 4KB and block caching
> >>> > is disabled. Nothing else special in there.
> >>> >
> >>> > J-D
> >>> >
> >>> > 2011/12/14  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >>> > > Thanks for the info, J-D.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > I guess the 1.1 below is in millions.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Can you tell us more about your tables - bloom filters, etc ?
> >>> > >
> >>> > >
> >>> > >
> >>> > > 在 Dec 14, 2011,5:26 PM,Jean-Daniel Cryans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 写道:
> >>> > >
> >>> > >> Hey guys,
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >> I was doing some comparisons between 0.90.5 and 0.92.0, mainly
> >>> > >> regarding reads. The numbers are kinda irrelevant but the
> differences
> >>> > >> are. BTW this is on CDH3u3 with random reads.
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >> In 0.90.0, scanning 50M rows that are in the OS cache I go up to
> about
> >>> > >> 1.7M rows scanned per second.
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >> In 0.92.0, scanning those same rows (meaning that I didn't run
> >>> > >> compactions after migrating so it's picking the same data from
> the OS
> >>> > >> cache), I scan about 1.1 rows per second.
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >> 0.92 is 50% slower when scanning.
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >> In 0.90.0 random reading 50M rows that are OS cached I can do
> about
> >>> > >> 200k reads per second.
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >> In 0.92.0, again with those same rows, I can go up to 260k per
> second.
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >> 0.92 is 30% faster when random reading.
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >> I've been playing with that data set for a while and the numbers
> in
> >>> > >> 0.92.0 when using HFileV1 or V2 are pretty much the same meaning
> that
> >>> > >> something else changed or the code that's generic to both did.
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >> I'd like to be able to associate those differences to code
> changes in
> >>> > >> order to understand what's going on. I would really appreciate if
> >>> > >> others also took some time to test it out or to think about what
> could
> >>> > >> cause this.
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >> Thx,
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >> J-D
> >>> >
> >>>
>
NEW: Monitor These Apps!
elasticsearch, apache solr, apache hbase, hadoop, redis, casssandra, amazon cloudwatch, mysql, memcached, apache kafka, apache zookeeper, apache storm, ubuntu, centOS, red hat, debian, puppet labs, java, senseiDB