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

Switch to Threaded View
HBase >> mail # dev >> Performances Tests

Copy link to this message
Re: Performances Tests
I did my own tests (single threaded hacked together test code - not PE or LT) and I do not measure scan perf improvements between 0.94.2 and 0.94.3.
But I do see improvements between 0.94.3 and 0.94.4.
So I am starting to either:
1. Not trust my test code
2. Not trust PE
3. Not trust your methodology

Or maybe PE exercises some code that I don't.

-- Lars

 From: Jean-Marc Spaggiari <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 9:47 AM
Subject: Re: Performances Tests
@Lars: here is an example of what I use
for i in {1..10}; do echo; echo -n $i ; rm -rf /tmp/*;
bin/start-hbase.sh; sleep 60; bin/hbase
org.apache.hadoop.hbase.PerformanceEvaluation sequentialWrite 1;
bin/hbase org.apache.hadoop.hbase.PerformanceEvaluation --rows=100
filterScan 1; bin/stop-hbase.sh; done &>> output.txt

Giving only 1 as the readers allow to not launch the test as a MR. I
have not try the same tests with a bigger number, but I can.

@Andy: LoadTestTool is also on my list, but for YCSB it's a but harder
since I will need more than one dedicated computer. But I will look at
it too. I might be able to remove 1 node from my cluster and dedicate
it to the tests when required...
I will be pretty buzy next week, but before next week-end I will try
to prepare the LoadTestTool scripts to run something similar. With
multiple scenarios, like with and whithout bloom, etc.

If yu have any recommandation/request, feel free! I will come back
soon with some additionnal numbers.


2013/3/17 Andrew Purtell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I'm not sure I trust the results of PerformanceEvauation.
> LoadTestTool and YCSB have their own issues but seem to produce more
> consistent results. I've been thinking on adding scanning and filtering
> tests to LoadTestTool.
> On Sunday, March 17, 2013, lars hofhansl wrote:
>> 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] <javascript:;>>
>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <javascript:;>
>> 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