Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-hbase-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-hbase-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1A2F3103E7 for ; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 19:56:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 95747 invoked by uid 500); 25 Nov 2013 19:56:27 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-hbase-dev-archive@hbase.apache.org Received: (qmail 95641 invoked by uid 500); 25 Nov 2013 19:56:27 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@hbase.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@hbase.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@hbase.apache.org Received: (qmail 95633 invoked by uid 99); 25 Nov 2013 19:56:27 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 19:56:27 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.2 required=5.0 tests=HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_20,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS,T_REMOTE_IMAGE X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of yuzhihong@gmail.com designates 209.85.215.44 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.215.44] (HELO mail-la0-f44.google.com) (209.85.215.44) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 19:56:20 +0000 Received: by mail-la0-f44.google.com with SMTP id ep20so3487572lab.3 for ; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 11:55:59 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=GvG7ozpaTcZGikv6T0g7MNLgFIfr8bEvwY+mz0E97RQ=; b=xhO68k9/CKDQqlkmMtPfT+nA5wPaZn+FhcxTXlb2YnfG0node32Atjrgxxy/dFBPue udfzZBhtpMVkJZIcftdRselPyCDWkjgRMLbLe8KCGtB+zOQDtOvpx+yBuTfUux7RMUK7 GoAGSd39HuSMPhjdGI6ltndpM4qVMRaY5sMVLXMg0SJZ/vWuKBnjyiazIJfVt3HsC4OM JNhCOTsCNqlHQxDTQYKf7SQ0ZJBHxbUjsog3MHfT1DDFXoW6i7RR6oTb52SgNvgTN6Rt R9drANV8j2omHUInReRIgcpPmKkkx/dSVJGx7hWH9WxB6kKVmxQwT/SpY4fvlooGRh0w vEGg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.143.3 with SMTP id sa3mr22627688lbb.12.1385409359778; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 11:55:59 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.112.129.40 with HTTP; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 11:55:59 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 03:55:59 +0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: HBase 0.96.0 performace From: Ted Yu To: "dev@hbase.apache.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e011827aec2195004ec05c0c3 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --089e011827aec2195004ec05c0c3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 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 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? > > > > > --089e011827aec2195004ec05c0c3--