hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stack <st...@duboce.net>
Subject Re: [VOTE] The 1st hbase-0.96.0 release candidate is available for download
Date Tue, 03 Sep 2013 13:06:52 GMT
On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 10:51 AM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari <
jean-marc@spaggiari.org> wrote:

> I have created:
>  HBASE-9412
>  HBASE-9413
>  HBASE-9414
>
> I have not been able yet to reproduce the ZK error. I'm trying.
>
>
Is it when you have a shell connection and then kill it?



> Last, I tried, with no success, to set loglevel to WARN to remove all
> DEBUG and INFO logs. Setting it to WARN remove the DEBUG lines, but I
> keep getting the INFO. Seems that something is setting the log level
> somewhere else, or it's not read.
>
> Here is my log4j.properties file. I removed all the customed log level
> to setup WARN for org.apache. And it's still showing INFO...
>
>

You did it by editing log4j and restarting or in the UI?  I think the UI
log level setting is broke.... (new issue!)

Thanks for trying it out JMS,

So everything is slower in 0.96?
St.Ack



> JM
>
>
> # Define some default values that can be overridden by system properties
> hbase.root.logger=WARN,console
> hbase.security.logger=WARN,console
> hbase.log.dir=.
> hbase.log.file=hbase.log
>
> # Define the root logger to the system property "hbase.root.logger".
> log4j.rootLogger=${hbase.root.logger}
>
> # Logging Threshold
> log4j.threshold=ALL
>
> #
> # Daily Rolling File Appender
> #
> log4j.appender.DRFA=org.apache.log4j.DailyRollingFileAppender
> log4j.appender.DRFA.File=${hbase.log.dir}/${hbase.log.file}
>
> # Rollver at midnight
> log4j.appender.DRFA.DatePattern=.yyyy-MM-dd
>
> # 30-day backup
> #log4j.appender.DRFA.MaxBackupIndex=30
> log4j.appender.DRFA.layout=org.apache.log4j.PatternLayout
>
> # Pattern format: Date LogLevel LoggerName LogMessage
> log4j.appender.DRFA.layout.ConversionPattern=%d{ISO8601} %-5p [%t] %c{2}:
> %m%n
>
> # Rolling File Appender properties
> hbase.log.maxfilesize=256MB
> hbase.log.maxbackupindex=20
>
> # Rolling File Appender
> log4j.appender.RFA=org.apache.log4j.RollingFileAppender
> log4j.appender.RFA.File=${hbase.log.dir}/${hbase.log.file}
>
> log4j.appender.RFA.MaxFileSize=${hbase.log.maxfilesize}
> log4j.appender.RFA.MaxBackupIndex=${hbase.log.maxbackupindex}
>
> log4j.appender.RFA.layout=org.apache.log4j.PatternLayout
> log4j.appender.RFA.layout.ConversionPattern=%d{ISO8601} %-5p [%t] %c{2}:
> %m%n
>
> #
> # Security audit appender
> #
> hbase.security.log.file=SecurityAuth.audit
> hbase.security.log.maxfilesize=256MB
> hbase.security.log.maxbackupindex=20
> log4j.appender.RFAS=org.apache.log4j.RollingFileAppender
> log4j.appender.RFAS.File=${hbase.log.dir}/${hbase.security.log.file}
> log4j.appender.RFAS.MaxFileSize=${hbase.security.log.maxfilesize}
> log4j.appender.RFAS.MaxBackupIndex=${hbase.security.log.maxbackupindex}
> log4j.appender.RFAS.layout=org.apache.log4j.PatternLayout
> log4j.appender.RFAS.layout.ConversionPattern=%d{ISO8601} %p %c: %m%n
> log4j.category.SecurityLogger=${hbase.security.logger}
> log4j.additivity.SecurityLogger=false
>
> #log4j.logger.SecurityLogger.org.apache.hadoop.hbase.security.access.AccessController=TRACE
>
> #
> # Null Appender
> #
> log4j.appender.NullAppender=org.apache.log4j.varia.NullAppender
>
> #
> # console
> # Add "console" to rootlogger above if you want to use this
> #
> log4j.appender.console=org.apache.log4j.ConsoleAppender
> log4j.appender.console.target=System.err
> log4j.appender.console.layout=org.apache.log4j.PatternLayout
> log4j.appender.console.layout.ConversionPattern=%d{ISO8601} %-5p [%t]
> %c{2}: %m%n
>
> # Custom Logging levels
>
> log4j.logger.ore.apache=WARN
>
> 2013/9/2 Jean-Marc Spaggiari <jean-marc@spaggiari.org>:
> > Hi St.Ack,
> >
> > I will open the relate JIRAs in few minutes.
> >
> > Regarding performances, RandomSeekScanTest is way slower, and only
> > RandomScanWithRange100Test was faster. Others were similar. For
> > RandomScanWithRange100Test I suspect that I don't have the right
> > number for 0.94 so 0.94.11 tests are running right now on the same
> > server with the same configuration. I will start to have numbers by
> > end of day, else, tomorrow morning, but will most probably take about
> > 24h to get all of them.
> >
> > JM
> >
> > 2013/9/2 Stack <stack@duboce.net>:
> >> On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 9:41 AM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari <
> jean-marc@spaggiari.org
> >>> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Got it.
> >>>
> >>> I can't run the integration tests for now because I'm lacking some
> >>> servers :( Need to complete some HBase on RAID tests before I can get
> >>> those new servers
> >>>
> >>> First thing is, start-hbase.cmd has the execute flag set. I don't
> >>> think it's required. And it will help with tabulation feature if we
> >>> can un-set it.
> >>>
> >>> For 0.96.0RC0 here are my results:
> >>> First, I get 2 .out files. each time I start the server, instead of
> >>> usually one... With the same timestamp.
> >>>
> >>> -rw-r--r-- 1 jmspaggiari jmspaggiari     0 Aug 31 15:38
> >>> hbase-jmspaggiari-master-t430s.out
> >>> -rw-r--r-- 1 jmspaggiari jmspaggiari     0 Aug 31 15:38
> >>> hbase-jmspaggiari-master-t430s.out.1
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> In the UI, we say "The .META. table holds references to all User Table
> >>> regions" but the table name is "hbase:meta" and not ".META."
> >>>
> >>> On the logs, I found this exception that I did not had before:
> >>> 2013-08-31 18:45:05,490 WARN
> >>> [NIOServerCxn.Factory:0.0.0.0/0.0.0.0:2181] server.NIOServerCnxn:
> >>> caught end of stream exception
> >>> EndOfStreamException: Unable to read additional data from client
> >>> sessionid 0x140d68bb9d50004, likely client has closed socket
> >>>     at
> >>> org.apache.zookeeper.server.NIOServerCnxn.doIO(NIOServerCnxn.java:220)
> >>>     at
> >>>
> org.apache.zookeeper.server.NIOServerCnxnFactory.run(NIOServerCnxnFactory.java:208)
> >>>     at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:662)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I ran PE over 48h. I don't have another 0.96 baseline to compare with,
> >>> so I compared with 0.94.
> >>> org.apache.hadoop.hbase.PerformanceEvaluation$RandomSeekScanTest is
> >>> about 3 times slower with 0.96.
> >>>
> org.apache.hadoop.hbase.PerformanceEvaluation$RandomScanWithRange100Test
> >>> seems to be 2 times faster.
> >>>
> >>> Writes also are faster but I changed my hard drive since I ran 0.94.
> >>> So I'm currently re-running 0.94 and will provide another more
> >>> accurate comparison soon.
> >>>
> >>> Ran LoadTestTool: Failed to write keys: 0
> >>>
> >>> I have not been able to run IntegrationTestLoadAndVerify nor
> >>> IntegrationTestBigLinkedList because of the lack of servers.
> >>>
> >>> So overall, it seems to be working fine, but I have not been able to
> >>> test this release as deeply as I'm usually testing the 0.94 releases.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Thank you for taking it for a spin JMS -- you the man.  If you don't
> open
> >> issues for the teething stuff, I will.
> >>
> >> So 0.96 is slower doing RandomSeekScanTest but faster on your other
> tests?
> >>  I can take a look too.
> >>
> >> St.Ack
>

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