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
Copy link to this message
-
Re: Performances Tests
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
> >> 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

Best regards,

   - Andy

Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
(via Tom White)
+
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
+
Ted Yu 2013-03-17, 02:17
+
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