hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Elliott Clark <ecl...@stumbleupon.com>
Subject Re: ANN: The third hbase 0.94.0 release candidate is available for download
Date Mon, 07 May 2012 18:07:39 GMT
Sorry everything is in elapsed time as reported by Elapsed time in
milliseconds.  So higher is worse.

The standard deviation on 0.92.1 writes is 4,591,384 so Write 5 is a little
outside of 1 std dev.  Not really sure what happened on that test, but it
does appear that PE is very noisy.

On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 10:47 AM, Todd Lipcon <todd@cloudera.com> wrote:

> 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 <eclark@stumbleupon.com>
> 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 <yuzhihong@gmail.com> 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 <eclark@stumbleupon.com
> >> >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 <yuzhihong@gmail.com> 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 <
> eclark@stumbleupon.com
> >> > > >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 <
> >> eclark@stumbleupon.com
> >> > > > >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 <
> >> > > mikael.sitruk@gmail.com
> >> > > > >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 <yuzhihong@gmail.com>
> >> 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 <
> >> > > eclark@stumbleupon.com
> >> > > > >> > >wrote:
> >> > > > >> >
> >> > > > >> > > Sure, sorry about that.
> >> > > > >> > >
> >> > > > >> > > http://imgur.com/waxlS
> >> > > > >> > >
> >> > > > >> > >
> >> > > > >> >
> >> > > > >>
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> http://www.scribd.com/eclark847297/d/92151092-Hbase-0-94-0-RC3-Local-YCSB-Perf
> >> > > > >> > >
> >> > > > >> > > On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 3:01 PM, Ted Yu <
> yuzhihong@gmail.com>
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > > > >> > >
> >> > > > >> > > > Elliot:
> >> > > > >> > > > Thanks for the report.
> >> > > > >> > > > Can you publish results somewhere else
?
> >> > > > >> > > > Attachments were stripped off.
> >> > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > >> > > > On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Elliott
Clark <
> >> > > > >> eclark@stumbleupon.com
> >> > > > >> > > > >wrote:
> >> > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > >> > > > > I ran some tests of local filesystem
YCSB. I used the
> 0.90
> >> > > > client
> >> > > > >> for
> >> > > > >> > > > > 0.90.6.  For the rest of the tests
I used 0.92 clients.
> >> The
> >> > > > >> results
> >> > > > >> > are
> >> > > > >> > > > > attached.
> >> > > > >> > > > >
> >> > > > >> > > > > 0.90 -> 0.94.0RC3 13% faster
> >> > > > >> > > > > 0.92 -> 0.94.0RC3 50% faster
> >> > > > >> > > > >
> >> > > > >> > > > >  This seems to be a pretty large
performance
> improvement.
> >> > >  I'll
> >> > > > >> run
> >> > > > >> > > some
> >> > > > >> > > > > tests on a cluster later today.
> >> > > > >> > > > >
> >> > > > >> > > > > On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 10:20 PM,
lars hofhansl <
> >> > > > >> lhofhansl@yahoo.com
> >> > > > >> > > > >wrote:
> >> > > > >> > > > >
> >> > > > >> > > > >> Thanks Todd.
> >> > > > >> > > > >>
> >> > > > >> > > > >> I agree with doing source code
releases going forward.
> >> > > > >> > > > >>
> >> > > > >> > > > >> For that, would it be sufficient
to just vote against
> an
> >> > SVN
> >> > > > tag?
> >> > > > >> > > > >> Tarballs can then be pulled
straight from that tag.
> >> > > > >> > > > >>
> >> > > > >> > > > >> -- Lars
> >> > > > >> > > > >>
> >> > > > >> > > > >>
> >> > > > >> > > > >>
> >> > > > >> > > > >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> > > > >> > > > >> From: Todd Lipcon <todd@cloudera.com>
> >> > > > >> > > > >> To: dev@hbase.apache.org; lars
hofhansl <
> >> > lhofhansl@yahoo.com
> >> > > >
> >> > > > >> > > > >> Cc:
> >> > > > >> > > > >> Sent: Tuesday, May 1, 2012 9:35
PM
> >> > > > >> > > > >> Subject: Re: ANN: The third
hbase 0.94.0 release
> >> candidate
> >> > is
> >> > > > >> > > available
> >> > > > >> > > > >> for download
> >> > > > >> > > > >>
> >> > > > >> > > > >> +1 from me, I took it for a
spin on the local
> filesystem
> >> > with
> >> > > > >> some
> >> > > > >> > > YCSB
> >> > > > >> > > > >> load.
> >> > > > >> > > > >>
> >> > > > >> > > > >> Here is my signature on the
non-secure tarball.
> >> > > > >> > > > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >> > > > >> > > > >> Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
> >> > > > >> > > > >>
> >> > > > >> > > > >>
> >> > > > iEYEABECAAYFAk+guTIACgkQXkPKua7Hfq9YSQCeMnCQ4XFqLjw+PF8IXNPDug+t
> >> > > > >> > > > >> h90AoJ+q4YSg4JbfiCmaXenadWSRU1of
> >> > > > >> > > > >> =CdfZ
> >> > > > >> > > > >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >> > > > >> > > > >>
> >> > > > >> > > > >> I didn't check out the secure
tarball.
> >> > > > >> > > > >>
> >> > > > >> > > > >> I think for future releases
we should do the voting
> >> > against a
> >> > > > >> source
> >> > > > >> > > tar
> >> > > > >> > > > >> (ie an svn export) since we
now produce multiple
> >> binaries,
> >> > > and
> >> > > > >> it's
> >> > > > >> > > > easier
> >> > > > >> > > > >> to verify that a source tar
matches SVN, etc.
> >> > > > >> > > > >>
> >> > > > >> > > > >> -Todd
> >> > > > >> > > > >>
> >> > > > >> > > > >>
> >> > > > >> > > > >> On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 4:26
PM, lars hofhansl <
> >> > > > >> lhofhansl@yahoo.com>
> >> > > > >> > > > >> wrote:
> >> > > > >> > > > >>
> >> > > > >> > > > >> > The third 0.94.0 RC is
available for download here:
> >> > > > >> > > > >> > http://people.apache.org/~larsh/hbase-0.94.0-rc3/
> >> > > > >> > > > >> > (My gpg key is available
from pgp.mit.edu. Key id:
> >> > > 7CA45750)
> >> > > > >> > > > >> >
> >> > > > >> > > > >> > HBase 0.94 is a performance
release, and there are
> some
> >> > > > >> > interesting
> >> > > > >> > > > new
> >> > > > >> > > > >> > features as well.
> >> > > > >> > > > >> >
> >> > > > >> > > > >> > It is wire compatible with
0.92.x. 0.92 clients
> should
> >> > work
> >> > > > >> with
> >> > > > >> > > 0.94
> >> > > > >> > > > >> > servers and vice versa.
> >> > > > >> > > > >> >
> >> > > > >> > > > >> > You can do a rolling restart
to get your 0.92.x
> HBase
> >> up
> >> > on
> >> > > > >> this
> >> > > > >> > > > >> 0.94.0RC.
> >> > > > >> > > > >> >
> >> > > > >> > > > >> > The full list of changes
is available here:
> >> > > > >> > > > >> >
> >> > > > >> > > > >> >
> >> > > > >> > > > >>
> >> > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > >> > >
> >> > > > >> >
> >> > > > >>
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12310753&version=12316419
> >> > > > >> > > > >> >
> >> > > > >> > > > >> > Please take this RC for
a spin, check out the doc,
> etc,
> >> > and
> >> > > > >> vote
> >> > > > >> > > +1/-1
> >> > > > >> > > > >> by
> >> > > > >> > > > >> > May 8th on whether we should
release this as 0.94.0.
> >> > > > >> > > > >> >
> >> > > > >> > > > >> > Thanks.
> >> > > > >> > > > >> >
> >> > > > >> > > > >> > -- Lars
> >> > > > >> > > > >> >
> >> > > > >> > > > >>
> >> > > > >> > > > >>
> >> > > > >> > > > >>
> >> > > > >> > > > >> --
> >> > > > >> > > > >> Todd Lipcon
> >> > > > >> > > > >> Software Engineer, Cloudera
> >> > > > >> > > > >>
> >> > > > >> > > > >>
> >> > > > >> > > > >
> >> > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > >> > >
> >> > > > >> >
> >> > > > >>
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
>
>
>
> --
> Todd Lipcon
> Software Engineer, Cloudera
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message