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
+
lars hofhansl 2013-03-17, 03:23
+
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
Copy link to this message
-
Re: Performances Tests
Ted Yu 2013-03-17, 02:17
Thanks for sharing this result, Jean-Marc.

For randomRead, looks like the degradation happened between 0.94.0 and
0.94.1

Cheers

On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 7:03 PM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> 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,
> >> >
> >> >    - Andy
> >> >
> >> > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet
+
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