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

Switch to Threaded View
HBase >> mail # user >> Replication not suited for intensive write applications?


Copy link to this message
-
Re: Replication not suited for intensive write applications?
Thanks for the answer!
My responses are inline.

On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 11:02 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> First off, this is a pretty constructed case leading to a specious general
> conclusion.
>
> If you only have three RSs/DNs and the default replication factor of 3,
> each machine will get every single write.
> That is the first issue. Using HBase makes little sense with such a small
> cluster.
>
You are correct, non the less - network as I measured, was far from its
capacity thus probably not the bottleneck.

>
> Secondly, as you say yourself, there are only three regionservers writing
> to the replicated cluster using a single thread each in order to preserve
> ordering.
> With more region servers your scale will tip the other way. Again more
> regionservers will make this better.
>
> I presume, in production, I will add more region servers to accommodate
growing write demand on my cluster. Hence, my clients will write with more
threads. Thus proportionally I will always have a lot more client threads
than the number of region servers (each has one replication thread). So, I
don't see how adding more region servers will tip the scale to other side.
The only way to avoid this, is to design the cluster in such a way that if
I can handle the events received at the client which write them to HBase
with x Threads, this is the amount of region servers I should have. If I
will have a spike, then it will even out eventually, but this under
utilizing my cluster hardware, no?
> As for your other question, more threads can lead to better interleaving
> of CPU and IO, thus leading to better throughput (this relationship is not
> linear, though).
>
>

>
> -- Lars
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Asaf Mesika <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc:
> Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 3:46 AM
> Subject: Replication not suited for intensive write applications?
>
> Hi,
>
> I've been conducting lots of benchmarks to test the maximum throughput of
> replication in HBase.
>
> I've come to the conclusion that HBase replication is not suited for write
> intensive application. I hope that people here can show me where I'm wrong.
>
> *My setup*
> *Cluster (*Master and slave are alike)
> 1 Master, NameNode
> 3 RS, Data Node
>
> All computers are the same: 8 Cores x 3.4 GHz, 8 GB Ram, 1 Gigabit ethernet
> card
>
> I insert data into HBase from a java process (client) reading files from
> disk, running on the machine running the HBase Master in the master
> cluster.
>
> *Benchmark Results*
> When the client writes with 10 Threads, then the master cluster writes at
> 17 MB/sec, while the replicated cluster writes at 12 Mb/sec. The data size
> I wrote is 15 GB, all Puts, to two different tables.
> Both clusters when tested independently without replication, achieved write
> throughput of 17-19 MB/sec, so evidently the replication process is the
> bottleneck.
>
> I also tested connectivity between the two clusters using "netcat" and
> achieved 111 MB/sec.
> I've checked the usage of the network cards both on the client, master
> cluster region server and slave region servers. No computer when over
> 30mb/sec in Receive or Transmit.
> The way I checked was rather crud but works: I've run "netstat -ie" before
> HBase in the master cluster starts writing and after it finishes. The same
> was done on the replicated cluster (when the replication started and
> finished). I can tell the amount of bytes Received and Transmitted and I
> know that duration each cluster worked, thus I can calculate the
> throughput.
>
> *The bottleneck in my opinion*
> Since we've excluded network capacity, and each cluster works at faster
> rate independently, all is left is the replication process.
> My client writes to the master cluster with 10 Threads, and manages to
> write at 17-18 MB/sec.
> Each region server has only 1 thread responsible for transmitting the data
> written to the WAL to the slave cluster. Thus in my setup I effectively