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

Switch to Plain View
HBase, mail # user - Poor HBase map-reduce scan performance


+
Bryan Keller 2013-05-01, 04:01
+
Ted Yu 2013-05-01, 04:17
+
Bryan Keller 2013-05-01, 04:31
+
Ted Yu 2013-05-01, 04:56
+
Bryan Keller 2013-05-01, 05:01
+
lars hofhansl 2013-05-01, 05:01
+
Bryan Keller 2013-05-01, 06:02
+
Michael Segel 2013-05-01, 14:24
+
lars hofhansl 2013-05-01, 06:21
+
Bryan Keller 2013-05-01, 15:00
+
Bryan Keller 2013-05-02, 01:01
+
lars hofhansl 2013-05-02, 04:41
Copy link to this message
-
Re: Poor HBase map-reduce scan performance
Bryan Keller 2013-05-02, 04:49
I used exactly 0.94.4, pulled from the tag in subversion.

On May 1, 2013, at 9:41 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Hmm... Did you actually use exactly version 0.94.4, or the latest 0.94.7.
> I would be very curious to see profiling data.
>
> -- Lars
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Bryan Keller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc:
> Sent: Wednesday, May 1, 2013 6:01 PM
> Subject: Re: Poor HBase map-reduce scan performance
>
> I tried running my test with 0.94.4, unfortunately performance was about the same. I'm planning on profiling the regionserver and trying some other things tonight and tomorrow and will report back.
>
> On May 1, 2013, at 8:00 AM, Bryan Keller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Yes I would like to try this, if you can point me to the pom.xml patch that would save me some time.
>>
>> On Tuesday, April 30, 2013, lars hofhansl wrote:
>> If you can, try 0.94.4+; it should significantly reduce the amount of bytes copied around in RAM during scanning, especially if you have wide rows and/or large key portions. That in turns makes scans scale better across cores, since RAM is shared resource between cores (much like disk).
>>
>>
>> It's not hard to build the latest HBase against Cloudera's version of Hadoop. I can send along a simple patch to pom.xml to do that.
>>
>> -- Lars
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>>   From: Bryan Keller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 11:02 PM
>> Subject: Re: Poor HBase map-reduce scan performance
>>
>>
>> The table has hashed keys so rows are evenly distributed amongst the regionservers, and load on each regionserver is pretty much the same. I also have per-table balancing turned on. I get mostly data local mappers with only a few rack local (maybe 10 of the 250 mappers).
>>
>> Currently the table is a wide table schema, with lists of data structures stored as columns with column prefixes grouping the data structures (e.g. 1_name, 1_address, 1_city, 2_name, 2_address, 2_city). I was thinking of moving those data structures to protobuf which would cut down on the number of columns. The downside is I can't filter on one value with that, but it is a tradeoff I would make for performance. I was also considering restructuring the table into a tall table.
>>
>> Something interesting is that my old regionserver machines had five 15k SCSI drives instead of 2 SSDs, and performance was about the same. Also, my old network was 1gbit, now it is 10gbit. So neither network nor disk I/O appear to be the bottleneck. The CPU is rather high for the regionserver so it seems like the best candidate to investigate. I will try profiling it tomorrow and will report back. I may revisit compression on vs off since that is adding load to the CPU.
>>
>> I'll also come up with a sample program that generates data similar to my table.
>>
>>
>> On Apr 30, 2013, at 10:01 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> Your average row is 35k so scanner caching would not make a huge difference, although I would have expected some improvements by setting it to 10 or 50 since you have a wide 10ge pipe.
>>>
>>> I assume your table is split sufficiently to touch all RegionServer... Do you see the same load/IO on all region servers?
>>>
>>> A bunch of scan improvements went into HBase since 0.94.2.
>>> I blogged about some of these changes here: http://hadoop-hbase.blogspot.com/2012/12/hbase-profiling.html
>>>
>>> In your case - since you have many columns, each of which carry the rowkey - you might benefit a lot from HBASE-7279.
>>>
>>> In the end HBase *is* slower than straight HDFS for full scans. How could it not be?
>>> So I would start by looking at HDFS first. Make sure Nagle's is disbaled in both HBase and HDFS.
>>>
>>> And lastly SSDs are somewhat new territory for HBase. Maybe Andy Purtell is listening, I think he did some tests with HBase on SSDs.
>>> With rotating media you typically see an improvement with compression. With SSDs the added CPU needed for decompression might outweigh the benefits.
+
Bryan Keller 2013-05-02, 17:54
+
Nicolas Liochon 2013-05-02, 18:00
+
lars hofhansl 2013-05-03, 00:46
+
Bryan Keller 2013-05-03, 07:17
+
Bryan Keller 2013-05-03, 10:44
+
lars hofhansl 2013-05-05, 01:33
+
Bryan Keller 2013-05-08, 17:15
+
Bryan Keller 2013-05-10, 15:46
+
Sandy Pratt 2013-05-22, 20:29
+
Ted Yu 2013-05-22, 20:39
+
Sandy Pratt 2013-05-22, 22:33
+
Ted Yu 2013-05-22, 22:57
+
Bryan Keller 2013-05-23, 15:45
+
Sandy Pratt 2013-05-23, 22:42
+
Ted Yu 2013-05-23, 22:47
+
Sandy Pratt 2013-06-05, 01:11
+
Sandy Pratt 2013-06-05, 08:09
+
yonghu 2013-06-05, 14:55
+
Ted Yu 2013-06-05, 16:12
+
yonghu 2013-06-05, 18:14
+
Sandy Pratt 2013-06-05, 18:57
+
Sandy Pratt 2013-06-05, 17:58
+
lars hofhansl 2013-06-06, 01:03
+
Bryan Keller 2013-06-25, 08:56
+
lars hofhansl 2013-06-28, 17:56
+
Bryan Keller 2013-07-01, 04:23
+
Ted Yu 2013-07-01, 04:32
+
lars hofhansl 2013-07-01, 10:59
+
Enis Söztutar 2013-07-01, 21:23
+
Bryan Keller 2013-07-01, 21:35
+
lars hofhansl 2013-05-25, 05:50
+
Enis Söztutar 2013-05-29, 20:29
+
Bryan Keller 2013-06-04, 17:01
+
Michael Segel 2013-05-06, 03:09
+
Matt Corgan 2013-05-01, 06:52
+
Jean-Marc Spaggiari 2013-05-01, 10:56
+
Bryan Keller 2013-05-01, 16:39
+
Naidu MS 2013-05-01, 07:25
+
ramkrishna vasudevan 2013-05-01, 07:27
+
ramkrishna vasudevan 2013-05-01, 07:29