Mailing-List: contact dev-help@accumulo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@accumulo.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Question about 1.7 bugfix releases
To: dev@accumulo.apache.org
References: <CAL5zq9bZgKVOaPu_OdVZ0mF4nQ7t9uEvjsV_nzJvwsqqUqeMvw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGHyZ6Jz4WMPjcC6sWW=OzDwxVwFAbxnqsJTbwC22x60EMN5RQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAL5zq9an2Ns1aX9i92A=wcSMoadJajgex1ZkmtqYTb3-Mc_DLw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGHyZ6+eKtCatBCqWJRR4DwCdZXUUi18KwEpwr9YbakLaysivA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAL5zq9Yqg7sHC0hQTTFvWmyjw1jOyEoDQkcCOgpVP7gVtvhPRg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAL4xCsn13R18qurFsOw8dTXsPp6tYxifg4JcdG10fxvRWUmHLA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAL4xCsnJGKj1MT+LyOpL6nC04_ig32tt6meu3zjSEGktY-Yn8Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGHyZ6+SFweMe=45XfshcCQBaBsbC6QhM2nspk7sH3+4hOt0CQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAL5zq9aVTGWjVjAPT+LiBX+CZsyWYEPaL8W+R5L8B2fEBSDp8Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFAMeYKXZFDfzb9Fz568z9KL92J3juCmuV6n=aMspkugQvPx4Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH0f5v2aBYX01BbRYrLYZ7+KXQArV5rTfju4shtjzs3UHszR4A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGHyZ6KoVvHgnZxP60wSyC-cJNs12KSgBJPKWZnHqtnu89TE0g@mail.gmail.com>
 <6b71dbd9-4ed9-1368-aeaa-18141bcef4fa@gmail.com>
 <CAGHyZ6+d=bQvg5XbHfQXGmKNVwzy==g0gWrVatnAF4avFJ_ngQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Josh Elser <josh.elser@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <e58c93c0-efd0-6be0-7704-9b88af79d964@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 14:20:27 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:52.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAGHyZ6+d=bQvg5XbHfQXGmKNVwzy==g0gWrVatnAF4avFJ_ngQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
archived-at: Tue, 06 Jun 2017 18:20:39 -0000

On 6/6/17 2:13 PM, Sean Busbey wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 12:07 PM, Josh Elser <josh.elser@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 6/6/17 12:39 PM, Sean Busbey wrote:
>>>
>>> For example, has anyone done perf comparisons between 1.7 and 1.8.z?
>>>
>>> When it came time for me to start telling folks that it was "safe" to
>>> upgrade to 1.7.z I ran into something like a 40-60% perf degradation
>>> on writes compared to 1.6 across the board. A little bit of this was
>>> already fixed in 1.8 at the time, but a substantial amount required a
>>> non-trivial refactoring because just no one had looked[1]. Even after
>>> all of that, I still had to caveat things because I still saw a
>>> ~15-30% perf drop on random writes in the presence of lots of columns.
>>
>>
>> At a risk of de-railing otherwise good discussion on releases: do you recall
>> if you had accounted for the following, Sean? (notably, the last code
>> snippet)
>>
>> https://accumulo.apache.org/blog/2016/11/02/durability-performance.html
> 
> I know that "set durability to flush and not sync" was one of the
> parameters for the comparison, but I don't remember what was done
> specifically during the testing back in September, tbh.
> 
> I can probably dig it out if you'd like; I think we were pretty good
> at keeping notes. Probably something for a different thread?
> 

Agreed. Just wanted to ask before I forgot again. Saw some relevance in 
the worry of perf regressions 1.7->1.8 based on the existence of those 
you saw 1.6->1.7, but def don't want to derail further here.

If you have the time and the notes, would be happy to review.