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 >> HBase random read performance


+
Ankit Jain 2013-04-13, 05:31
+
Ted Yu 2013-04-13, 15:16
+
Adrien Mogenet 2013-04-13, 16:00
+
Harsh J 2013-04-13, 17:02
+
Jean-Marc Spaggiari 2013-04-14, 21:58
+
Anoop Sam John 2013-04-15, 10:17
+
Rishabh Agrawal 2013-04-15, 10:42
+
Ankit Jain 2013-04-15, 10:53
+
谢良 2013-04-15, 11:41
+
Ankit Jain 2013-04-15, 13:04
+
Doug Meil 2013-04-15, 13:21
+
Ted Yu 2013-04-15, 13:30
+
Ted Yu 2013-04-15, 14:13
Copy link to this message
-
Re: 答复: HBase random read performance
This is a related JIRA which should provide noticeable speed up:

HBASE-1935 Scan in parallel

Cheers

On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 7:13 AM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I looked
> at src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/client/HConnectionManager.java in
> 0.94
>
> In processBatchCallback(), starting line 1538,
>
>         // step 1: break up into regionserver-sized chunks and build the
> data structs
>         Map<HRegionLocation, MultiAction<R>> actionsByServer >           new HashMap<HRegionLocation, MultiAction<R>>();
>         for (int i = 0; i < workingList.size(); i++) {
>
> So we do group individual action by server.
>
> FYI
>
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 6:30 AM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Doug made a good point.
>>
>> Take a look at the performance gain for parallel scan (bottom chart
>> compared to top chart):
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12578083/FDencode.png
>>
>> See
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-8316?focusedCommentId=13628300&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-13628300for explanation of the two methods.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 6:21 AM, Doug Meil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Hi there, regarding this...
>>>
>>> > We are passing random 10000 row-keys as input, while HBase is taking
>>> around
>>> > 17 secs to return 10000 records.
>>>
>>>
>>> ….  Given that you are generating 10,000 random keys, your multi-get is
>>> very likely hitting all 5 nodes of your cluster.
>>>
>>>
>>> Historically, multi-Get used to first sort the requests by RS and then
>>> *serially* go the RS to process the multi-Get.  I'm not sure of the
>>> current (0.94.x) behavior if it multi-threads or not.
>>>
>>> One thing you might want to consider is confirming that client behavior,
>>> and if it's not multi-threading then perform a test that does the same RS
>>> sorting via...
>>>
>>>
>>> http://hbase.apache.org/apidocs/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/client/HTable.html#
>>> getRegionLocation%28byte[<http://hbase.apache.org/apidocs/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/client/HTable.html#getRegionLocation%28byte[>
>>> ]%29
>>>
>>> …. and then spin up your own threads (one per target RS) and see what
>>> happens.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4/15/13 9:04 AM, "Ankit Jain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>> >Hi Liang,
>>> >
>>> >Thanks Liang for reply..
>>> >
>>> >Ans1:
>>> >I tried by using HFile block size of 32 KB and bloom filter is enabled.
>>> >The
>>> >random read performance is 10000 records in 23 secs.
>>> >
>>> >Ans2:
>>> >We are retrieving all the 10000 rows in one call.
>>> >
>>> >Ans3:
>>> >Disk detai:
>>> >Model Number:       ST2000DM001-1CH164
>>> >Serial Number:      Z1E276YF
>>> >
>>> >Please suggest some more optimization
>>> >
>>> >Thanks,
>>> >Ankit Jain
>>> >
>>> >On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 5:11 PM, 谢良 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> First, it's probably helpless to set block size to 4KB, please refer
>>> to
>>> >> the beginning of HFile.java:
>>> >>
>>> >>  Smaller blocks are good
>>> >>  * for random access, but require more memory to hold the block index,
>>> >>and
>>> >> may
>>> >>  * be slower to create (because we must flush the compressor stream at
>>> >>the
>>> >>  * conclusion of each data block, which leads to an FS I/O flush).
>>> >> Further, due
>>> >>  * to the internal caching in Compression codec, the smallest possible
>>> >> block
>>> >>  * size would be around 20KB-30KB.
>>> >>
>>> >> Second, is it a single-thread test client or multi-threads? we
>>> couldn't
>>> >> expect too much if the requests are one by one.
>>> >>
>>> >> Third, could you provide more info about  your DN disk numbers and IO
>>> >> utils ?
>>> >>
>>> >> Thanks,
>>> >> Liang
>>> >> ________________________________________
>>> >> 发件人: Ankit Jain [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>>> >> 发送时间: 2013年4月15日 18:53
>>> >> 收件人: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> >> 主题: Re: HBase random read performance
>>> >>
>>> >> Hi Anoop,
>>> >>
>>> >> Thanks for reply..
+
lars hofhansl 2013-04-16, 14:55
+
Liu, Raymond 2013-04-16, 07:49
+
Nicolas Liochon 2013-04-16, 08:22
+
Jean-Marc Spaggiari 2013-04-16, 11:01
+
Michel Segel 2013-04-17, 12:33
+
Håvard Wahl Kongsgård 2013-04-14, 22:19
+
Mohammad Tariq 2013-04-14, 22:39
+
Ted Yu 2013-07-08, 12:49
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