Jay T 2012-08-28, 20:35
Wayne 2012-08-29, 17:42
Stack 2012-08-30, 06:07
Thanks Stack for pointing us in the right direction. Indeed it was the
tcpNodeDelay setting. We set these to be true.
ipc.server.tcpnodelay ==> true
hbase.ipc.client.tcpnodelay ==> true
All reads that previously had the 40ms overhead are now between 2 and 3
ms like we would expect them to be.
Are these settings worthy of being put in the Hbase online book ?
On 8/30/12 2:07 AM, Stack wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 10:42 AM, Wayne<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> This is basically a read bug/performance problem. The execution path
>> followed when the caching is used up is not consistent with the initial
>> execution path/performance. Can anyone help shed light on this? Was there
>> any changes to 0.94 to introduce this (we have not tested on other
>> versions)? Any help or advice would be appreciated. As it is stands we are
>> looking to have to reverse engineer every aspect of a read from both the
>> hbase client and server components to find and fix.
>> One additional lead is that not all rows behave like this. Only certain
>> small rows seem to do this consistently. Most of our rows are larger and do
>> not have this behavior.
> Nagles? (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-2125)
Stack 2012-08-30, 22:24
Ramkrishna.S.Vasudevan 2012-08-31, 04:15
Ramkrishna.S.Vasudevan 2012-08-29, 05:22
Stack 2012-08-31, 04:53