Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
 Search Hadoop and all its subprojects:

Switch to Threaded View
HBase, mail # dev - [VOTE] The 1st hbase-0.96.0 release candidate is available for download


Copy link to this message
-
Re: [VOTE] The 1st hbase-0.96.0 release candidate is available for download
Stack 2013-09-02, 17:00
On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 9:41 AM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> Got it.
>
> I can't run the integration tests for now because I'm lacking some
> servers :( Need to complete some HBase on RAID tests before I can get
> those new servers
>
> First thing is, start-hbase.cmd has the execute flag set. I don't
> think it's required. And it will help with tabulation feature if we
> can un-set it.
>
> For 0.96.0RC0 here are my results:
> First, I get 2 .out files. each time I start the server, instead of
> usually one... With the same timestamp.
>
> -rw-r--r-- 1 jmspaggiari jmspaggiari     0 Aug 31 15:38
> hbase-jmspaggiari-master-t430s.out
> -rw-r--r-- 1 jmspaggiari jmspaggiari     0 Aug 31 15:38
> hbase-jmspaggiari-master-t430s.out.1
>
>
> In the UI, we say "The .META. table holds references to all User Table
> regions" but the table name is "hbase:meta" and not ".META."
>
> On the logs, I found this exception that I did not had before:
> 2013-08-31 18:45:05,490 WARN
> [NIOServerCxn.Factory:0.0.0.0/0.0.0.0:2181] server.NIOServerCnxn:
> caught end of stream exception
> EndOfStreamException: Unable to read additional data from client
> sessionid 0x140d68bb9d50004, likely client has closed socket
>     at
> org.apache.zookeeper.server.NIOServerCnxn.doIO(NIOServerCnxn.java:220)
>     at
> org.apache.zookeeper.server.NIOServerCnxnFactory.run(NIOServerCnxnFactory.java:208)
>     at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:662)
>
>
> I ran PE over 48h. I don't have another 0.96 baseline to compare with,
> so I compared with 0.94.
> org.apache.hadoop.hbase.PerformanceEvaluation$RandomSeekScanTest is
> about 3 times slower with 0.96.
> org.apache.hadoop.hbase.PerformanceEvaluation$RandomScanWithRange100Test
> seems to be 2 times faster.
>
> Writes also are faster but I changed my hard drive since I ran 0.94.
> So I'm currently re-running 0.94 and will provide another more
> accurate comparison soon.
>
> Ran LoadTestTool: Failed to write keys: 0
>
> I have not been able to run IntegrationTestLoadAndVerify nor
> IntegrationTestBigLinkedList because of the lack of servers.
>
> So overall, it seems to be working fine, but I have not been able to
> test this release as deeply as I'm usually testing the 0.94 releases.
>

Thank you for taking it for a spin JMS -- you the man.  If you don't open
issues for the teething stuff, I will.

So 0.96 is slower doing RandomSeekScanTest but faster on your other tests?
 I can take a look too.

St.Ack