S Ahmed 2013-01-22, 18:38
lars hofhansl 2013-01-22, 19:03
Kevin Odell 2013-01-22, 19:06
S Ahmed 2013-01-22, 19:12
Ian Varley 2013-01-22, 19:23
Andrew Purtell 2013-01-22, 19:32
Jean-Daniel Cryans 2013-01-22, 18:46
S Ahmed 2013-01-22, 19:01
Ted Yu 2013-01-22, 19:05
Sent from my iPhone
On 22 בינו 2013, at 20:47, Jean-Daniel Cryans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 10:38 AM, S Ahmed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've read articles online where I see cassandra doing like 20K writers per
second, and hbase around 2-3K.
Numbers with 0 context don't mean much, if at all.
I understand both systems have their strenghts, but I am curious as to what
is holding hbase from reaching similiar results?
Is it HDFS that is the issue? Or hbase does certain things (to its
advantage) that slows the write path down?
Our writes are generally quite fast, I think at the moment some
improvements can be made at the client level. I did some tests last
year and I could get better throughput with the asynchbase client
compared to the normal Java client because the former has call queues
per region server. Both tests were using the same region servers,
uploading the same data set.
Can you elaborate more on why asynchronous hbase client is better?
anil gupta 2013-01-23, 07:08