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

Switch to Threaded View
HBase >> mail # user >> Acceptable CPU_WIO % ?

Copy link to this message
Re: Acceptable CPU_WIO % ?

  I think you misunderstood me.  I am not advocating any form of RAID for
Hadoop.  It is true that we already have redundancy built in with HDFS.  So
unless you were going to do something silly like sacrifice speed to run
RAID1 or RAID5 and lower your replication to 2...just don't do it :)
 Anyway, yes you probably should have 3 - 4 drives per node if not more.
 At that point then the you will really see the benefit of JBOD over RAID0

Do you want to be able to lose a drive and keep the node up?  If yes, then
JBOD is for you.  Do you not care if you lose that node due to drive
failure? You just need speed, then RAID0 may be the correct choice.  Sar
will take some time to populate.  Give it about 24 hours and you should be
able to glean some interesting information.

On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 9:50 PM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> Ok. I see with RAID0 might be better for me compare to JBOD. Also, why
> do we want to use RAID1 or RAID5? We already have the redundancy done
> by hadoop, is it not going to add another non-required level of
> redundancy?
> Should I already think to have 3 or even 4 drives in each node?
> I tried sar -A and it's only giving me 2 lines.
> root@node7:/home/hbase# sar -A
> Linux 3.2.0-4-amd64 (node7)     2013-02-07      _x86_64_        (4 CPU)
> 21:29:54          LINUX RESTART
> It was not enabled, so I just enabled it and restart sysstat, but
> seems that it's still not populated.
> I have the diskstats plugin installed on ganglia, so I have a LOT of
> disks information, but not this specific one.
> My write_bytes_per_sec is pretty low. Average is 232K for the last 2
> hours. But my erad_bytes_per_sec is avera 22.83M for the same period.
> The graph is looking like a comb.
> I just retried sar and some data is coming.. I will need to let it run
> for few more minutes to get some more data ...
> JM
> 2013/2/7, Kevin O'dell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > JM,
> >
> >   Okay, I think I see what was happening.  You currently only have one
> > drive in the system that is showing High I/O wait correct?  You are
> looking
> > at bringing in a second drive to help distribute the load?  In your
> testing
> > with two drives you saw that RAID0 offerred superior performance vs JBOD.
> >  Typically when we see RAID vs JBOD we are dealing with about 6 - 12
> > drives.  Here are some of the pluses and minuses:
> >
> > RAID0 - faster performance since the data is striped, but you are as fast
> > as your slowest drive and one drive failure you lose the whole volume.
> >
> > JBOD - Better redundancy and faster than a RAID1, or a RAID5
> > configuration(unsure about a RAID4), but you are slower than RAID0
> >
> > It sounds like since you only have 1 drive in the node right now, you
> > wouldn't be gaining or losing any redundancy by going with RAID0.  For
> what
> > it is worth, I would agree that you are I/O bound.  If you run a sar -A >
> > /tmp/sar.out and you take a look at the drive utilization what is your
> > TPS(IOPs) count that you are seeing?
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 9:00 PM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari
> >> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Kevin,
> >>
> >> I'm facing some issues on one of my nodes and I'm trying to find a way
> >> to fix that. CPU is used about 10% by user, and 80% for WIO. So I'm
> >> looking for a way to improve that. The mother board can do RAIDx and
> >> JBOD too. It's the server I used few weeks ago to run some disks
> >> benchs.
> >>
> >> http://www.spaggiari.org/index.php/hbase/hard-drives-performances
> >>
> >> The conclusion was that RAID0 was 70% faster than JBOD. But JBOD was
> >> faster than RAID1.
> >>
> >> I have a 2TB drive in this server and was thinking about just adding
> >> another 2TB drive.
> >>
> >> What are the advantages of JBOD compared to RAID0? From the last tests
> >> I did, it was slower.
> >>
> >> Since I will have to re-format the disks anyway, I can re-run the
> >> tests just in case I did not configured something properly....

Kevin O'Dell
Customer Operations Engineer, Cloudera