hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jean-Marc Spaggiari <jean-m...@spaggiari.org>
Subject Re: Performances Tests
Date Wed, 13 Mar 2013 00:41:36 GMT
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)

Mime
View raw message