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

Switch to Plain View
HBase, mail # dev - ANN: The third hbase 0.94.0 release candidate is available for download


+
lars hofhansl 2012-04-18, 23:20
+
Jonathan Hsieh 2012-04-23, 17:46
+
lars hofhansl 2012-04-23, 22:37
+
Stack 2012-04-23, 17:54
+
lars hofhansl 2012-05-01, 23:26
+
Todd Lipcon 2012-05-02, 04:35
+
lars hofhansl 2012-05-02, 05:20
+
Elliott Clark 2012-05-02, 21:59
+
Ted Yu 2012-05-02, 22:01
+
Elliott Clark 2012-05-02, 22:07
+
Ted Yu 2012-05-02, 22:10
+
Mikael Sitruk 2012-05-03, 07:15
+
Elliott Clark 2012-05-03, 17:36
+
Elliott Clark 2012-05-04, 22:04
+
Ted Yu 2012-05-04, 22:07
+
Elliott Clark 2012-05-04, 22:14
+
Ted Yu 2012-05-05, 02:42
+
Elliott Clark 2012-05-07, 17:42
Copy link to this message
-
Re: ANN: The third hbase 0.94.0 release candidate is available for download
Todd Lipcon 2012-05-07, 17:47
Is higher better or worse? :) Any idea what happened on the "Write 5" test?

On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 10:42 AM, Elliott Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://www.scribd.com/eclark847297/d/92715238-0-94-0-RC3-Cluster-Perf
>
> On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 7:42 PM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> 0.94 also has LoadTestTool (from FB)
>>
>> I have used it to do some cluster load testing.
>>
>> Just FYI
>>
>> On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 3:14 PM, Elliott Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >wrote:
>>
>> > With the cluster size that I'm testing YCSB was stressing the client
>> > machine more than the cluster.  I was saturating the network of the test
>> > machine.  So I switched over to pe; while it doesn't have a realistic
>> work
>> > load it is better than nothing.
>> >
>> > On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 3:07 PM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Thanks for the update, Elliot.
>> > >
>> > > If I read your post correctly, you're using PE. ycsb is better
>> measuring
>> > > performance, from my experience.
>> > >
>> > > Cheers
>> > >
>> > > On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 3:04 PM, Elliott Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > > >wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > So I got 94.0rc3 up on a cluster and tried to break it, Killing
>> masters
>> > > and
>> > > > killing rs.  Everything seems good. hbck reports everything is good.
>> >  And
>> > > > all my reads succeed.
>> > > >
>> > > > I'll post cluster benchmark numbers once they are done running.
>>  Should
>> > > > only be a couple more hours of pe runs.
>> > > >
>> > > > Looks great to me.
>> > > > On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Elliott Clark <
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > > > >wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > I agree it was just a micro benchmark with no guarantee that it
>> > relates
>> > > > to
>> > > > > real world. With it just being standalone I didn't think anyone
>> > should
>> > > > take
>> > > > > the numbers as 100% representative.  Really I was just trying to
>> > shake
>> > > > out
>> > > > > any weird behaviors and the fact that we got a big speed up was
>> > > > > interesting.
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 12:15 AM, Mikael Sitruk <
>> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > > > >wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > >> Hi guys
>> > > > >> Looking at the posted slide/pictures for the benchmark the
>> > > > >> following intriguing me:
>> > > > >> 1. The recordcount is only 100,000
>> > > > >> 2. workoloada is: read 50%, update 50% and zipfian distribution
>> even
>> > > > with
>> > > > >> 5M operations count, the same keys are updated again and again.
>> > > > >> 3. heap size 10G
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> Therefore it might be that the dataset is too small (even with 3
>> > > > versions
>> > > > >> configured we have = 3(version)*100,000(keys)*1KB (size of
>> record) >> > > 300
>> > > > >> MB
>> > > > >> of "live" dataset ?
>> > > > >> And approximately the number of store files will be 5x10^6 (op
>> > > > >> count)*1KB(record size)/256MB(max store file size (Default))=>20
>> > store
>> > > > >> file, even taking factor of 10 for metadata (record key, in store
>> > > files)
>> > > > >> we
>> > > > >> will get 200 files.
>> > > > >> if a major compaction is running it will shrink all the storefile
>> > to a
>> > > > >> single small one.
>> > > > >> What I try to say is - if the maths are correct - (please note
>> that
>> > i
>> > > > did
>> > > > >> not take into account compression which just make things better),
>> > can
>> > > we
>> > > > >> relate on such scenario for performance benchmark with such small
>> > > > dataset
>> > > > >> and such distribution?
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> Regards
>> > > > >> Mikael.S
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 1:10 AM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> > I am surprised to see 0.92.1 exhibit such unfavorable
>> performance
>> > > > >> profile.
>> > > > >> > Let's see whether cluster testing gives us similar results.
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 3:07 PM, Elliott Clark <
>> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Todd Lipcon
Software Engineer, Cloudera
+
Elliott Clark 2012-05-07, 18:07
+
Enis Söztutar 2012-05-07, 20:43
+
Elliott Clark 2012-05-08, 17:38
+
lars hofhansl 2012-05-08, 20:21
+
Elliott Clark 2012-05-08, 21:47
+
lars hofhansl 2012-05-10, 00:57
+
Ramkrishna.S.Vasudevan 2012-05-10, 15:41
+
Todd Lipcon 2012-05-10, 17:01
+
rama krishna 2012-05-10, 17:17
+
Andrew Purtell 2012-05-10, 16:09
+
Stack 2012-05-11, 04:15
+
Mikael Sitruk 2012-05-11, 05:04
+
Stack 2012-05-11, 05:18
+
Mikael Sitruk 2012-05-11, 10:24
+
Stack 2012-05-12, 05:02
+
Mikael Sitruk 2012-05-12, 17:14
+
Stack 2012-05-12, 21:50
+
Mikael Sitruk 2012-05-12, 22:14
+
lars hofhansl 2012-05-12, 05:26
+
Stack 2012-05-12, 05:39
+
lars hofhansl 2012-05-13, 17:22
+
Ramkrishna.S.Vasudevan 2012-05-14, 06:18
+
Ramkrishna.S.Vasudevan 2012-05-14, 13:59
+
Ted Yu 2012-05-14, 14:17
+
lars hofhansl 2012-05-14, 15:15
+
Todd Lipcon 2012-05-14, 15:17
+
Ramkrishna.S.Vasudevan 2012-05-14, 15:30
+
Jonathan Hsieh 2012-05-16, 16:04
+
Ramkrishna.S.Vasudevan 2012-05-16, 16:22