hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Performances Tests
Date Wed, 20 Mar 2013 16:08:35 GMT
I am curious to know how trunk stands in the performance comparison.
There have been many optimizations going into trunk. Getting hold of
overall improvement would be nice.

Cheers

On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 5:02 AM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari <
jean-marc@spaggiari.org> wrote:

> Hi Lars,
>
> Can you share the code you are using so I can compate with PE? Also, I
> will re-run all for my scanRange100 tests today and update the
> spreadsheet again to make sure it's correct. Also also re-download all
> the HBase versions to make sure they are all clean. I'm not doing any
> configuration with them. Simply reducing the logs and tmp pointing to
> memory file system.
>
> I will keep you posted when it's done.
>
> Hi Jonathan,
>
> It's usually rows per seconds, but with a factor 10. Sometime I had to
> divide by 100000, sometime to multiply to get numbers bigger... I will
> take a look at th formulas and add the legend for each of the charts.
>
> JM
>
> 2013/3/19 Jonathan Hsieh <jon@cloudera.com>:
> > What is the y axis's unit?  seconds or operations per second etc?  (nit:
> > would be nice to have on the axis.. )
> >
> > Based on the context, I believe it is ops/s.
> >
> > Jon.
> >
> > On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 7:03 PM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari <
> > jean-marc@spaggiari.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Enis,
> >>
> >> "interesting" in the positive way ;)
> >>
> >> Results are there:
> >>
> >>
> http://www.spaggiari.org/media/blogs/hbase/pictures/performances-1.pdf?mtime=1363484477
> >>
> >> The improvment on scan are impressive. sequentialRead and randomScan
> went
> >> down.
> >>
> >> In ran the 0.94.6 tests with RC2. If we have a RC3 I will rerun them.
> >>
> >> I will add HFilePerformanceEvaluation soon but I'm facinf some issues
> >> with it on previous HBase version...
> >>
> >> JM
> >>
> >> 2013/3/12 Enis Söztutar <enis.soz@gmail.com>:
> >> >> I just finished to run all the PerformanceEvaluation tests on a
> >> > dedicated computer with all 0.9x.x HBase versions, and I found results
> >> > interesting.
> >> > Can you please provide your numbers if you can. What is interesting
> from
> >> > your findings?
> >> >
> >> > Enis
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 5:41 PM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari <
> >> > jean-marc@spaggiari.org> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> If you run only 1 client with PerformanceEvaluation, it's not running
> >> >> it over MapReduce, so you don't have this overhead. But you can still
> >> >> run it if you want to have something more distributed. Might be
> useful
> >> >> to have the 2 options. But at the end, LoadTestTool or
> >> >> PerformanceEvaluation, any of the 2 is good as long as we are adding
> >> >> those tests.
> >> >>
> >> >> I just finished to run all the PerformanceEvaluation tests on a
> >> >> dedicated computer with all 0.9x.x HBase versions, and I found
> results
> >> >> interesting. That gives us a good baseline to see if new HBase
> >> >> improvements are really improving performances.
> >> >>
> >> >> JM
> >> >>
> >> >> 2013/3/8 Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org>:
> >> >> > Tangentally: I think I prefer LoadTestTool over
> >> PerformanceEvaluation, it
> >> >> > doesn't depend on nor is influenced by MapReduce job startup.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 10:05 PM, ramkrishna vasudevan <
> >> >> > ramkrishna.s.vasudevan@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> @JM
> >> >> >> I agree with you.  Mainly the perf improvement changes needs
some
> >> >> >> testcases.
> >> >> >> But sometimes the scenario on which the perf improvments happens
> are
> >> bit
> >> >> >> difficult to generate and we will be able to do in a standalone
> case
> >> >> only.
> >> >> >>  May be overall if we need to get that perf improvment result
we
> >> need a
> >> >> >> real cluster with suitable data.  That is what i have experienced.
> >>  Just
> >> >> >> telling.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Regards
> >> >> >> Ram
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 7:28 PM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari <
> >> >> >> jean-marc@spaggiari.org
> >> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > Hi,
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > In HBase we already have PerformanceEvaluation which
gives us a
> >> good
> >> >> >> > way to validate that nothing broke HBase speed in the
recent
> >> updates.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > I can see in the JIRAs many improvements coming, like
for the
> lazy
> >> >> >> > seeks, the bloom filters, etc. however, there is no tests
for
> those
> >> >> >> > improvements.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Will it not be good to ask people to add some new tests
in
> >> >> >> > PerformanceEvaluation when they are introducing an improvement
> >> which
> >> >> >> > is not covered there?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > We should not touch existing tests because we need to
have a
> way to
> >> >> >> > compare the baseline between the different versions,
but we can
> >> still
> >> >> >> > add some new. Like in addition to RandomSeekScanTest
we can add
> >> >> >> > RandomSeekScanBloomEnabledTest and so on. And even better
if we
> can
> >> >> >> > back port those new tests to previous version.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > The same way we add a test class when we introduce a
new
> feature,
> >> >> >> > should we add a performance test method to test it too?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > JM
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > --
> >> >> > Best regards,
> >> >> >
> >> >> >    - Andy
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. -
Piet
> >> Hein
> >> >> > (via Tom White)
> >> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > // Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
> > // Software Engineer, Cloudera
> > // jon@cloudera.com
>

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