Yeah, sorry, wasn't clear.
Your point is well taken, though, HBase should come configured and tuned out of the box for common workloads.
From: Vladimir Rodionov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 12:01 AM
Subject: Re: Next big thing for HBase
Oh, I got it. "Next big thing for HBase" is not MapR M7 , but global
optimization and tuning of HBase itself.
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 11:56 PM, Vladimir Rodionov
> Why do you think I got excited? I do not work for MapR. MapR has posted
> benchmark results and some numbers for HBase look quite low. I thought may
> be community will be interested in these results.
> On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 10:04 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Excuse me if I do not get too exited about a report published by MapR
>> that comes to the conclusion that MapR's M7 is faster than "other
>> -- Lars
>> From: Vladimir Rodionov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2013 8:00 PM
>> Subject: Next big thing for HBase
>> Global optimization and performance tuning:
>> Some numbers from this report does not look right for HBase. I do not
>> believe that 5 RS on Fusion drive scores only 1605 reads per sec per node.