hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From lars hofhansl <la...@apache.org>
Subject Re: 30% random performance in 0.95+
Date Fri, 28 Jun 2013 20:55:52 GMT
And indeed just this makes a tremendous difference. Unpatched 0.94 with 40% block cache configured
is actually faster than 0.95 with the same block cache size.

-- Lars



----- Original Message -----
From: lars hofhansl <larsh@apache.org>
To: "dev@hbase.apache.org" <dev@hbase.apache.org>
Cc: 
Sent: Friday, June 28, 2013 1:34 PM
Subject: Re: 30% random performance in 0.95+

Thanks JM,

HBASE-8450 (r1485562) is interesting. It increases (among other things) the block cache percentage
from 24 to 40%, which would lead to a higher probability of a future random read to hit an
already cached block.


-- Lars



----- Original Message -----
From: Jean-Marc Spaggiari <jean-marc@spaggiari.org>
To: dev@hbase.apache.org; lars hofhansl <larsh@apache.org>
Cc: 
Sent: Friday, June 28, 2013 1:18 PM
Subject: Re: 30% random performance in 0.95+

I have the script done to run over a list of "svn releases", so if
required, just give me a bunch of them or a range and I can restart.
Just keep me posted.

JM

2013/6/28 lars hofhansl <larsh@apache.org>:
> I did a few more test (on my laptop, which is not quite representative), and found only
a 2-3% improvement from HBASE-8001+HBASE-8012 in the end.
> I'll look through the issues that you identified.
>
> -- Lars
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jean-Marc Spaggiari <jean-marc@spaggiari.org>
> To: dev@hbase.apache.org
> Cc:
> Sent: Friday, June 28, 2013 12:51 PM
> Subject: Re: 30% random performance in 0.95+
>
> Sorry folks,
>
> I'm a bit late to run the tests... 0.94.8 and 0.94.9 are currently
> running, but here is what I have been able to capture so far for 0.95
> over the last year:
> r1357480 1513196
> r1367009 1440244.4
> r1375812 1287143.5
> r1381671 1287200.2
> r1388620 1295262.6
> r1394335 1022140.2
> r1403898 884171.9
> r1410631 804229.9
> r1419787 846816.9
> r1426557 853535.3
> r1433514 873265.1
> r1438972 840666.9
> r1446106 877432.2
> r1452661 883974.8
> r1458421 882233.3
> r1464267 847000.8
> r1478964 877433.5
> r1485868 744905.5
> r1494869 765105.9
>
> So seems that there was some improvements between r1367009 and
> r1403898 but they are old. Also another major improvement between
> r1478964 and r1485868...
>
> Let me know if you want me to dig further and I will be very happy to do so.
>
> JM
>
> 2013/6/28 Stack <stack@duboce.net>:
>> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 10:53 AM, lars hofhansl <larsh@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> I partially tracked this down to HBASE-8001 and HBASE-8012 by looking at
>>> the call stacks in a profiling session.
>>> HBASE-8767 is a backport of both patched to 0.94.
>>>
>>
>> Sounds like nice work by Raymond Liu...
>> St.Ack
>

Mime
View raw message