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

Switch to Plain View
HBase, mail # dev - Performances Tests


+
Jean-Marc Spaggiari 2013-03-08, 13:58
+
ramkrishna vasudevan 2013-03-08, 14:05
+
Andrew Purtell 2013-03-09, 03:30
+
Jean-Marc Spaggiari 2013-03-13, 00:41
+
Enis Söztutar 2013-03-13, 02:43
+
Jean-Marc Spaggiari 2013-03-17, 02:03
Copy link to this message
-
Re: Performances Tests
lars hofhansl 2013-03-17, 03:23
Cool. The 0.94.3 scanning improvements seems almost unbelievable (especially since many of my improvements to reduce the internal friction went into 0.94.4).
I would like to track down the random read regression.

Can you send the commands you ran? Are you running this as M/R job or standalone client?

Thanks for doing this J-M.
-- Lars

________________________________
 From: Jean-Marc Spaggiari <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2013 7:03 PM
Subject: Re: Performances Tests
 
Hi Enis,

"interesting" in the positive way ;)

Results are there:
http://www.spaggiari.org/media/blogs/hbase/pictures/performances-1.pdf?mtime=1363484477

The improvment on scan are impressive. sequentialRead and randomScan went down.

In ran the 0.94.6 tests with RC2. If we have a RC3 I will rerun them.

I will add HFilePerformanceEvaluation soon but I'm facinf some issues
with it on previous HBase version...

JM

2013/3/12 Enis Söztutar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> I just finished to run all the PerformanceEvaluation tests on a
> dedicated computer with all 0.9x.x HBase versions, and I found results
> interesting.
> Can you please provide your numbers if you can. What is interesting from
> your findings?
>
> Enis
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 5:41 PM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> If you run only 1 client with PerformanceEvaluation, it's not running
>> it over MapReduce, so you don't have this overhead. But you can still
>> run it if you want to have something more distributed. Might be useful
>> to have the 2 options. But at the end, LoadTestTool or
>> PerformanceEvaluation, any of the 2 is good as long as we are adding
>> those tests.
>>
>> I just finished to run all the PerformanceEvaluation tests on a
>> dedicated computer with all 0.9x.x HBase versions, and I found results
>> interesting. That gives us a good baseline to see if new HBase
>> improvements are really improving performances.
>>
>> JM
>>
>> 2013/3/8 Andrew Purtell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> > Tangentally: I think I prefer LoadTestTool over PerformanceEvaluation, it
>> > doesn't depend on nor is influenced by MapReduce job startup.
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 10:05 PM, ramkrishna vasudevan <
>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> @JM
>> >> I agree with you.  Mainly the perf improvement changes needs some
>> >> testcases.
>> >> But sometimes the scenario on which the perf improvments happens are bit
>> >> difficult to generate and we will be able to do in a standalone case
>> only.
>> >>  May be overall if we need to get that perf improvment result we need a
>> >> real cluster with suitable data.  That is what i have experienced.  Just
>> >> telling.
>> >>
>> >> Regards
>> >> Ram
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 7:28 PM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari <
>> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Hi,
>> >> >
>> >> > In HBase we already have PerformanceEvaluation which gives us a good
>> >> > way to validate that nothing broke HBase speed in the recent updates.
>> >> >
>> >> > I can see in the JIRAs many improvements coming, like for the lazy
>> >> > seeks, the bloom filters, etc. however, there is no tests for those
>> >> > improvements.
>> >> >
>> >> > Will it not be good to ask people to add some new tests in
>> >> > PerformanceEvaluation when they are introducing an improvement which
>> >> > is not covered there?
>> >> >
>> >> > We should not touch existing tests because we need to have a way to
>> >> > compare the baseline between the different versions, but we can still
>> >> > add some new. Like in addition to RandomSeekScanTest we can add
>> >> > RandomSeekScanBloomEnabledTest and so on. And even better if we can
>> >> > back port those new tests to previous version.
>> >> >
>> >> > The same way we add a test class when we introduce a new feature,
>> >> > should we add a performance test method to test it too?
>> >> >
>> >> > JM
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Best regards,
+
Andrew Purtell 2013-03-17, 10:55
+
Jean-Marc Spaggiari 2013-03-17, 16:47
+
Andrew Purtell 2013-03-17, 17:28
+
lars hofhansl 2013-03-17, 20:19
+
lars hofhansl 2013-03-17, 20:30
+
Ted Yu 2013-03-17, 02:17
+
Jonathan Hsieh 2013-03-19, 18:59
+
Jean-Marc Spaggiari 2013-03-20, 12:02
+
Ted Yu 2013-03-20, 16:08
+
Jean-Marc Spaggiari 2013-03-20, 18:44
+
Enis Söztutar 2013-03-20, 21:29