hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: ANN: The third hbase 0.94.0 release candidate is available for download
Date Sat, 05 May 2012 02:42:59 GMT
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
> > > >> > > > >>
> > > >> > > > >>
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

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