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 # user >> Disk space usage of HFilev1 vs HFilev2


Copy link to this message
-
Re: Disk space usage of HFilev1 vs HFilev2
Anil,

  Please let us know how well this works.

On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 4:19 PM, anil gupta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Hi Guys,
>
> I was digging through the hbase-default.xml file and i found this property
> relates HFile handling:
> </property>
>     <property>
>       <name>hfile.format.version</name>
>       <value>2</value>
>       <description>
>           The HFile format version to use for new files. Set this to 1 to
> test
>           backwards-compatibility. The default value of this option should
> be
>           consistent with FixedFileTrailer.MAX_VERSION.
>       </description>
>   </property>
>
> I believe setting this to 1 would help me carry out my test. Now we know
> how to store data in HFileV1 in HBase0.92 :) . I'll post the result once i
> try this out.
>
> Thanks,
> Anil
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 5:09 AM, J Mohamed Zahoor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > Cool. Now we have something on the records :-)
> >
> > ./Zahoor@iPad
> >
> > On 15-Aug-2012, at 3:12 AM, Harsh J <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Not wanting to have this thread too end up as a mystery-result on the
> > > web, I did some tests. I loaded 10k rows (of 100 KB random chars each)
> > > into test tables on 0.90 and 0.92 both, flushed them, major_compact'ed
> > > them (waited for completion and drop in IO write activity) and then
> > > measured them to find this:
> > >
> > > 0.92 takes a total of 1049661190 bytes under its /hbase/test directory.
> > > 0.90 takes a total of 1049467570 bytes under its /hbase/test directory.
> > >
> > > So… not much of a difference. It is still your data that counts. I
> > > believe what Anil may have had were merely additional, un-compacted
> > > stores?
> > >
> > > P.s. Note that my 'test' table were all defaults. That is, merely
> > > "create 'test', 'col1'", nothing else, so the block indexes must've
> > > probably gotten created for every row, as thats at 64k by default,
> > > while my rows are all 100k each.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 2:25 AM, anil gupta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > >> Hi Kevin,
> > >>
> > >> If it's not possible to store table in HFilev1 in HBase 0.92 then my
> > last
> > >> option will be to do store data on pseudo-distributed or standalone
> > cluster
> > >> for the comparison.
> > >> The advantage with the current installation is that its a fully
> > distributed
> > >> cluster with around 33 million records in a table. So, it would give
> me
> > a
> > >> better estimate.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> Anil Gupta
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 1:48 PM, Kevin O'dell <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Do you not have a pseudo cluster for testing anywhere?
> > >>>
> > >>> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 4:46 PM, anil gupta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> Hi Jerry,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I am wiling to do that but the problem is that i wiped off the
> > HBase0.90
> > >>>> cluster. Is there a way to store a table in HFilev1 in HBase0.92?
> If i
> > >>> can
> > >>>> store a file in HFilev1 in 0.92 then i can do the comparison.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Thanks,
> > >>>> Anil Gupta
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Jerry Lam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> Hi Anil:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Maybe you can try to compare the two HFile implementation directly?
> > Let
> > >>>> say
> > >>>>> write 1000 rows into HFile v1 format and then into HFile v2 format.
> > You
> > >>>> can
> > >>>>> then compare the size of the two directly?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> HTH,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Jerry
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 3:36 PM, anil gupta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> Hi Zahoor,
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Then it seems like i might have missed something when doing hdfs
> > >>> usage
> > >>>>>> estimation of HBase. I usually do hadoop fs -dus
> /hbase/$TABLE_NAME
> > >>> for
> > >>>>>> getting the hdfs usage of a table. Is this the right way? Since i
> > >>> wiped
> > >>>>> of

Kevin O'Dell
Customer Operations Engineer, Cloudera
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