hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From lars hofhansl <la...@apache.org>
Subject Re: HBase 0.96.0 performace
Date Tue, 26 Nov 2013 05:31:49 GMT
As a general comment for 0.94 vs 0.96 testing... Please always make sure we are testing against
the same default options.

In 0.96 we increased the default blockCache, enabled scanner caching, disabled Nagle's, increased
the handler count, etc.
In order to compare apples to apples we should always add the following config options to
0.94 (in hbase-site.xml)

hbase.regionserver.global.memstore.lowerLimit = 0.38
hfile.block.cache.size = 0.4
hbase.ipc.client.tcpnodelay = true
hbase.regionserver.handler.count = 30
hbase.client.scanner.caching = 100

There might be more, but these are obvious ones.

Thanks.

-- Lars




________________________________
 From: Jerry He <jerryjch@gmail.com>
To: dev <dev@hbase.apache.org> 
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2013 2:09 PM
Subject: Re: HBase 0.96.0 performace
 

Hi, Ted

Do you have the slides?
I don't have the full slides.  The image was passed to me by a co-worker in
China.  We are evaluating it.
I am copying the numbers below:

Release        3 YCSB clients (puts/seconds)             5 YCSB clients
(puts/seconds)
0.94.14         178K                                           
      220K
0.96.0           20K                                           
       15K
0.96.1           173K                                           
      168K

Release        10 YCSB clients (reads/seconds)         25 YCSB clients
(reads/seconds)
0.94.14         50K                                             
      52K
0.96.0           23K                                           
       23K
0.96.1           52K                                           
       54K



On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com> wrote:

> Jerry:
> Where did you obtain the picture ?
>
> If you got it from slides posted on China Hadoop Summit website, can you
> share the link ?
>
> Cheers
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 3:55 AM, Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The picture didn't go through.
> >
> > Correction: the comparison between hbase 0.96.0 and 0.96.1 was done by
> > Nicolas Liochon. This was not done at EBay.
> >
> > In my talk, there was another comparison to show that MTTR improved a lot
> > from 0.94 to 0.96 - this was done at EBay.
> >
> > When Stack cuts 0.96.1 RC0, you would get the list of JIRAs that
> > contributed to the speedup from 0.96.0 to 0.96.1
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 3:50 AM, Jerry He <jerryjch@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,  Ted, and hbase experts
> >>
> >> Below picture is a performance comparison between hbase 0.96.0 and
> >> 0.96.1, shared by Ted Yu in China Hadoop Summit today. This perf
> testing is
> >> said to be executed on ebay's real cluster.
> >>
> >> It is surprising 0.96.0 is such worse compared to 0.96.1 and even
> >> 0.94.14.  Are these numbers official and the performance degradation
> true?
> >>   What patch in 0.96.1 fixed this?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message