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 Plain View
HBase >> mail # user >> scaling a low latency service with HBase


+
Dave Latham 2012-10-19, 23:31
+
Amandeep Khurana 2012-10-20, 00:22
+
Andrew Purtell 2012-10-20, 01:16
Copy link to this message
-
Re: scaling a low latency service with HBase
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 5:22 PM, Amandeep Khurana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Answers inline
>
> On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 4:31 PM, Dave Latham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I need to scale an internal service / datastore that is currently hosted on
>> an HBase cluster and wanted to ask for advice from anyone out there who may
>> have some to share.  The service does simple key value lookups on 20 byte
>> keys to 20-40 byte values.  It currently has about 5 billion entries
>> (200GB), and processes about 40k random reads per second, and about 2k
>> random writes per second.  It currently delivers a median response at 2ms,
>> 90% at 20ms, 99% at 200ms, 99.5% at 5000ms - but the mean is 58ms which is
>> no longer meeting our needs very well.  It is persistent and highly
>> available.  I need to measure its working set more closely, but I believe
>> that around 20-30% (randomly distributed) of the data is accessed each
>> day.  I want a system that can scale to at least 10x current levels (50
>> billion entries - 2TB, 400k requests per second) and achieve a mean < 5ms
>> (ideally 1-2ms) and 99.5% < 50ms response time for reads while maintaining
>> persistence and reasonably high availability (99.9%).  Writes would ideally
>> be in the same as range but we could probably tolerate a mean more in the
>> 20-30ms range.
>>
>> Clearly for that latency, spinning disks won't cut it.  The current service
>> is running out of an hbase cluster that is shared with many other things
>> and when those other things hit the disk and network hard is when it
>> degrades.  The cluster has hundreds of nodes and this data is fits in a
>> small slice of block cache across most of them.  The concerns are that its
>> performance is impacted by other loads and that as it continues to grow
>> there may not be enough space in the current cluster's shared block cache.
>>
>> So I'm looking for something that will serve out of memory (backed by disk
>> for persistence) or from SSDs.  A few questions that I would love to hear
>> answers for:
>>
>>  - Does HBase sound like a good match as this grows?
>>
>
> Yes. The key to get more predictable performance is to separate out
> workloads. What are the other things that are using the same physical
> hardware and impacting performance? Have you measure performance when
> nothing else is running on the cluster?

There are several other things sharing the cluster and using it more
heavily than this service - both online request handling as well as
some large batch map reduce jobs.  When the large jobs aren't running
the performance is acceptable and typically in the 1-2ms mean reads
range.  (Served out of block cache).

>
>
>>  - Does anyone have experience running HBase over SSDs?  What sort of
>> latency and requests per second have you been able to achieve?
>>
>
> I don't believe many people are actually running this in production yet.
> Some folks have done some research on this topic and posted blogs (eg:
> http://hadoopblog.blogspot.com/2012/05/hadoop-and-solid-state-drives.html)
> but there's not a whole lot more than that to go by at this point.

Thanks, that's a really helpful reference.  It sounds like it could be
a big gain over disks already but that the bottleneck would move from
IO to CPU and that there would be significant work to be done.

>
>
>>  - Is anyone using a row cache on top of (or built into) HBase?  I think
>> there's been a bit of discussion on occasion but it hasn't gone very far.
>> There would be some overhead for each row.  It seems that if we were to
>> continue to rely on memory + disks this could reduce the memory required.
>>  - Does anyone have alternate suggestions for such a service?
>>
>
> The biggest recommendation is to separate out the workloads and then start
> planning for more hardware or additional components to get better
> performance.

Right, that's why I'm looking to separate this service out.  However,
I'd like to go with a much smaller set of nodes for this particular
service rather than duplicating the large, expensive cluster.
+
Pamecha, Abhishek 2012-10-20, 00:00
+
Dave Latham 2012-10-22, 23:30
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