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

Switch to Plain View
HBase >> mail # dev >> 30% random performance in 0.95+


+
lars hofhansl 2013-06-21, 22:46
+
Jean-Marc Spaggiari 2013-06-22, 01:25
+
Andrew Purtell 2013-06-22, 01:33
+
lars hofhansl 2013-06-22, 13:19
+
Jean-Marc Spaggiari 2013-06-22, 13:27
+
Jean-Marc Spaggiari 2013-06-22, 01:34
+
Jean-Marc Spaggiari 2013-06-22, 13:19
+
lars hofhansl 2013-06-22, 13:32
+
Jean-Marc Spaggiari 2013-06-22, 14:21
Copy link to this message
-
Re: 30% random performance in 0.95+
Thanks JM!
________________________________
 From: Jean-Marc Spaggiari <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2013 7:21 AM
Subject: Re: 30% random performance in 0.95+
 

Hey, a dichotomic search.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dichotomic_search) I thought about that,
but it's a bit more difficult to script.

So, I reduced it to test only 20 builds over the last year. Every 78
commits. Then we will tackle down from there. Should have the results
in about 48h (it's about half a day for 5 runs.)

JM

2013/6/22 lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Maybe do a "binary search" instead?
> I.e. run it at the beginning and end of the past year, then in the middle, then in that middle, etc.
> Assuming we're looking for a single major improvement, that should work and take much less time.
>
> Or maybe do every 100 commits, and after we narrowed the range I can look at the patches in that range.
>
>
> -- Lars
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>  From: Jean-Marc Spaggiari <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2013 6:19 AM
> Subject: Re: 30% random performance in 0.95+
>
>
> Tests are ready to run. I scripted something which is going to run
> tests over the last year for 0.95 and run the read tests for every 30
> commits, which is about 50 tests over the year.
>
> It will take about 5 days to run. So I'm first running the tests for
> HBASE-8755 with 10 threads and will run this one after.
>
> JM
>
> 2013/6/21 Jean-Marc Spaggiari <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Yep, I agree. If we found where the improvement is coming from, having
>> it on 0.94 might be awesome. No more reasons for me to migrate to 0.95
>> ;)
>>
>> 2013/6/21 Andrew Purtell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>> At least I would be curious if any of that could be bottled up and
>>> sprinkled on 0.94.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 6:25 PM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari <
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Should we really worry about that? ;) If it will have been a -30%, it
>>>> will have been an issue ;)
>>>>
>>>> If you want I can run the RandomRead test for the last 12 months,
>>>> running a test for every 5 or 10 commits? so we will see when this
>>>> happened?
>>>>
>>>> JM
>>>>
>>>> 2013/6/21 lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>>> > Is anybody ware of what set of changes would be responsible for giving
>>>> 0.95+ a 30% boost in random read performance over 0.94?
>>>> >
>>>> > Thanks.
>>>> >
>>>> > -- Lars
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>>    - Andy
>>>
>>> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
>>> (via Tom White)
+
lars hofhansl 2013-06-28, 17:53
+
Stack 2013-06-28, 19:21
+
Jean-Marc Spaggiari 2013-06-28, 19:51
+
lars hofhansl 2013-06-28, 20:13
+
Jean-Marc Spaggiari 2013-06-28, 20:18
+
lars hofhansl 2013-06-28, 20:34
+
lars hofhansl 2013-06-28, 20:55
+
Andrew Purtell 2013-06-28, 21:08
+
lars hofhansl 2013-06-28, 21:28
+
Jean-Marc Spaggiari 2013-06-29, 03:03
+
lars hofhansl 2013-06-29, 12:10
+
Varun Sharma 2013-06-29, 19:00
+
Varun Sharma 2013-06-29, 19:13
+
Jean-Marc Spaggiari 2013-07-02, 19:38