accumulo-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From guy sharon <guy.sharon.1...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Accumulo performance on various hardware configurations
Date Wed, 29 Aug 2018 13:39:32 GMT
Well, in one experiment I used a machine with 48 cores and 192GB and the
results actually came out worse. And in another I had 7 tservers on servers
with 4 cores. I think I'm not configuring things correctly because I'd
expect the improved hardware to improve performance and that doesn't seem
to be the case.

On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 4:00 PM Jeremy Kepner <kepner@ll.mit.edu> wrote:

> Your node is fairly underpowered (2 cores and 8 GB RAM) and is less than
> most laptops.  That said
>
> 6M / 12sec = 500K/sec
>
> is good for a single node Accumulo instance on this hardware.
>
> Spitting might not help since you only have 2 cores so added parallism
> can't
> be exploited.
>
> Why do you think 500K/sec is slow?
>
> To determine slowness one would have to compare with other database
> technology on the same platform.
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 03:04:51PM +0300, guy sharon wrote:
> > hi,
> >
> > Continuing my performance benchmarks, I'm still trying to figure out if
> the
> > results I'm getting are reasonable and why throwing more hardware at the
> > problem doesn't help. What I'm doing is a full table scan on a table with
> > 6M entries. This is Accumulo 1.7.4 with Zookeeper 3.4.12 and Hadoop
> 2.8.4.
> > The table is populated by
> > org.apache.accumulo.examples.simple.helloworld.InsertWithBatchWriter
> > modified to write 6M entries instead of 50k. Reads are performed by
> > "bin/accumulo org.apache.accumulo.examples.simple.helloworld.ReadData -i
> > muchos -z localhost:2181 -u root -t hellotable -p secret". Here are the
> > results I got:
> >
> > 1. 5 tserver cluster as configured by Muchos (
> > https://github.com/apache/fluo-muchos), running on m5d.large AWS
> machines
> > (2vCPU, 8GB RAM) running CentOS 7. Master is on a separate server. Scan
> > took 12 seconds.
> > 2. As above except with m5d.xlarge (4vCPU, 16GB RAM). Same results.
> > 3. Splitting the table to 4 tablets causes the runtime to increase to 16
> > seconds.
> > 4. 7 tserver cluster running m5d.xlarge servers. 12 seconds.
> > 5. Single node cluster on m5d.12xlarge (48 cores, 192GB RAM), running
> > Amazon Linux. Configuration as provided by Uno (
> > https://github.com/apache/fluo-uno). Total time was 26 seconds.
> >
> > Offhand I would say this is very slow. I'm guessing I'm making some sort
> of
> > newbie (possibly configuration) mistake but I can't figure out what it
> is.
> > Can anyone point me to something that might help me find out what it is?
> >
> > thanks,
> > Guy.
>

Mime
View raw message