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

Switch to Threaded View
HBase, mail # user - X3 slow down after moving from HBase 0.90.3 to HBase 0.92.1

Copy link to this message
Re: X3 slow down after moving from HBase 0.90.3 to HBase 0.92.1
Vincent Barat 2012-11-21, 09:02

I've checked my 30 RPC handler, they are all in a WAITING state:

Here is some extract for one of our RS (this is similar to all of them):

requestsPerSecond=593, numberOfOnlineRegions=584,
numberOfStores=1147, numberOfStorefiles=1980,
storefileIndexSizeMB=15, rootIndexSizeKB=16219,
totalStaticIndexSizeKB=246127, totalStaticBloomSizeKB=12936,
memstoreSizeMB=1421, readRequestsCount=633241097,
writeRequestsCount=9375846, compactionQueueSize=0, flushQueueSize=0,
usedHeapMB=3042, maxHeapMB=4591, blockCacheSizeMB=890.19,
blockCacheFreeMB=257.65, blockCacheCount=14048,
blockCacheHitCount=5854936149, blockCacheMissCount=14761288,
blockCacheEvictedCount=4870523, blockCacheHitRatio=99%,
blockCacheHitCachingRatio=99%, hdfsBlocksLocalityIndex=29

Le 21/11/12 05:53, Alok Singh a �crit :
> Do your PUTs and GETs have small amounts of data? If yes, then you can
> increase the number of handlers.
> We have a 8-node cluster on 0.92.1, and these are some of the setting
> we changed from 0.90.4
> hbase.regionserver.handler.count = 150
> hbase.hregion.max.filesize=2147483648 (2GB)
> The regions servers are run with a 16GB heap (-Xmx16000M)
> With these settings, at peak we can handle ~2K concurrent clients.
> Alok
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 8:21 AM, Vincent Barat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> We have changed some parameters on our 16(!) region servers : 1GB more -Xmx,
>> more rpc handler (from 10 to 30) longer timeout, but nothing seems to
>> improve the response time:
>> - Scans with HBase 0.92  are x3 SLOWER than with HBase 0.90.3
>> - A lot of simultaneous gets lead to a huge slow down of batch put & ramdom
>> read response time
>> ... despite the fact that our RS CPU load is really low (10%)
>> Note: we have not (yet) activated MSlabs, nor direct read on HDFS.
>> Any idea please ? I'm really stuck on that issue.
>> Best regards,
>> Le 16/11/12 20:55, Vincent Barat a �crit :
>>> Hi,
>>> Right now (and previously with 0.90.3) we were using the default value
>>> (10).
>>> We are trying right now to increase to 30 to see if it is better.
>>> Thanks for your concern
>>> Le 16/11/12 18:13, Ted Yu a �crit :
>>>> Vincent:
>>>> What's the value for hbase.regionserver.handler.count ?
>>>> I assume you keep the same value as that from 0.90.3
>>>> Thanks
>>>> On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 8:14 AM, Vincent
>>>> Barat<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>>>>> Le 16/11/12 01:56, Stack a �crit :
>>>>>    On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 5:21 AM, Guillaume Perrot<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> It happens when several tables are being compacted and/or when there
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>> several scanners running.
>>>>>> It happens for a particular region?  Anything you can tell about the
>>>>>> server looking in your cluster monitoring?  Is it running hot?  What
>>>>>> do the hbase regionserver stats in UI say?  Anything interesting about
>>>>>> compaction queues or requests?
>>>>> Hi, thanks for your answser Stack. I will take the lead on that thread
>>>>> from now on.
>>>>> It does not happens on any particular region. Actually, things get
>>>>> better
>>>>> now since compactions have been performed on all tables and have been
>>>>> stopped.
>>>>> Nevertheless, we face a dramatic decrease of performances (especially on
>>>>> random gets) of the overall cluster:
>>>>> Despite the fact we double our number of region servers (from 8 to 16)
>>>>> and
>>>>> despite the fact that these region server CPU load are just about 10% to
>>>>> 30%, performances are really bad : very often an light increase of
>>>>> request
>>>>> lead to a clients locked on request, very long response time. It looks
>>>>> like
>>>>> a contention / deadlock somewhere in the HBase client and C code.
>>>>>> If you look at the thread dump all handlers are occupied serving
>>>>>> requests?  These timedout requests couldn't get into the server?
*Vincent Barat*
* logo
*Contact info *
www.capptain.com <http://www.capptain.com>
Cell: +33 6 15 41 15 18
*Rennes Office *
Office: +33 2 99 65 69 13
10 rue Jean-Marie Duhamel
35000 Rennes
*Paris Office *
Office: +33 1 84 06 13 85
Fax: +33 9 57 72 20 18
18 rue Tronchet
75008 Paris

IMPORTANT NOTICE -- UBIKOD and CAPPTAIN are registered trademarks of
UBIKOD S.A.R.L., all copyrights are reserved. The contents of this
email and attachments are confidential and may be subject to legal
privilege and/or protected by copyright. Copying or communicating
any part of it to others is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you
are not the intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or
rely on this email and should please return it immediately or notify
us by telephone. At present the integrity of email across the
Internet cannot be guaranteed. Therefore UBIKOD S.A.R.L. will not
accept liability for any claims arising as a result of the use of
this medium for transmissions by or to UBIKOD S.A.R.L.. UBIKOD
S.A.R.L. may exercise any of its rights under relevant law, to
monitor the content of all electronic communications. You should
therefore be aware that this communication and any responses might
have been monitored, and may be accessed by UBIKOD S.A.R.L. The
views expressed in this document are that of the individual and may
not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement or
recommendation by UBIKOD S.A.R.L. The content of this electronic
mail may be subject to the confidentiality terms of a
"Non-Disclosure Agreement" (NDA).