hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Comparing the performance of 0.98.4 RC0 and 0.98.0 using YCSB - 23% perf regression in workload E
Date Fri, 18 Jul 2014 21:07:44 GMT
Workload E tests on a new testbed instance with careful attention to
configuration do not produce the same results. We have instead:

*​Workload E*  - 0.98.4RC0





[OVERALL] RunTime(ms)1270229 [OVERALL]Throughput(ops/sec)
7944[INSERT] Operations
499175 [INSERT]AverageLatency(us)
18[INSERT]MinLatency(us)
5[INSERT] MaxLatency(us)
571160 [INSERT]95thPercentileLatency(ms)
0[INSERT] 99thPercentileLatency(ms)
0 [SCAN]Operations
9500825[SCAN]AverageLatency(us)
​​
 ​​
21089[SCAN] MinLatency(us)
772 [SCAN]MaxLatency(us)
3300020[SCAN]95thPercentileLatency(ms)
107[SCAN] 99thPercentileLatency(ms)
152

I ran workload E a few times to insure the results were consistent. They
vary a bit due to natural variance but not by 23%.


On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 5:08 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org> wrote:

> Comparing the relative performance of 0.98.4 RC0 and 0.98.0 on Hadoop
> 2.2.0 using YCSB.
>
> This will be the last report of these from me for a while, as I will be
> losing my current access to EC2 resources tomorrow.
>
> 5 concurrent YCSB clients on 5 servers target 100,000 ops/second in
> aggregate. Reported average values are averages of readings from all
> clients over 3 runs. Min values are the minimum reported by any client on
> any run. Max and percentile values are the maximum reported by any client
> on any run. What is interesting is relative differences, because each EC2
> testbed has a varying baseline. 0.98.0 and 0.98.4 tests were run on the
> same instance set.
>
> These tests were run with no security coprocessors installed, using HFile
> V2. The workload E results are a concern. *It appears we have a 23%
> decline in measured scan throughput and an 23% increase in average op time
> from 27 ms to 35 ms. *This does not correspond to any active security
> feature (though that could worsen results potentially, untested) so is
> something changed in core code. Other workloads are not affected so this is
> something specific to scanning. Perhaps delete tracking.
>
>
> *Hardware and Versions*
>
>  Hadoop 2.2.0
>
> HBase 0.98.0-hadoop2 + HBASE-11277
>
> HBase 0.98.4-hadoop2 RC0
>
> YCSB 1.0.4
>
>
> 11x EC2 c3.8xlarge: 1 master, 5 slaves, 5 test clients
>
>     32 cores
>
>      60 GB RAM
>
>     2 x 320 GB directly attached SSD
>
>     NameNode: 4 GB heap
>
>     DataNode: 1 GB heap
>
>     Master: 1 GB heap
>
>     RegionServer: 8 GB heap, 24 GB bucket cache offheap engine
>
>
> *Methodology*
>
>
> Setup:
>
>      0. Start cluster
>      1. shell: create "seed", { NAME=>"u", COMPRESSION=>"snappy" }
>      2. YCSB: Preload 100 million rows into table "seed"
>      3. shell: flush "seed" ; compact "seed"
>      4. Wait for compaction to complete
>      5. shell: create_snapshot "seed", "seed_snap"
>      6. shell: disable "seed"
>
>
>  For each test:
>
>      7. shell: clone_snapshot "seed_snap", "test"
>      8. YCSB: On each client (5 clients), run test -p
> operationcount=2000000 -threads 20 -target 20000
>      9. shell: disable "test"
>     10. shell: drop "test"
>
> ​
>
>    *Workload A*
> *0.98.0* *0.98.4*
>
>
>
>  [OVERALL] RunTime(ms) 100743 100693  [OVERALL] Throughput(ops/sec) 99263
> 99312  [UPDATE] Operations 4997918 4999620  [UPDATE] AverageLatency(us)
> 633 647  [UPDATE] MinLatency(us) 269 268  [UPDATE] MaxLatency(us) 1450432
> 713191  [UPDATE] 95thPercentileLatency(ms) 0 0  [UPDATE]
> 99thPercentileLatency(ms) 5 4  [READ] Operations 5002242 5000540  [READ]
> AverageLatency(us) 151 144  [READ] MinLatency(us) 0 0  [READ]
> MaxLatency(us) 1104157 952392  [READ] 95thPercentileLatency(ms) 0 0
> [READ] 99thPercentileLatency(ms) 0 0
>
>
>
>  *Workload B*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  [OVERALL] RunTime(ms) 100465 100458  [OVERALL] Throughput(ops/sec) 99537
> 99544  [UPDATE] Operations 9499627 9499891  [UPDATE] AverageLatency(us)
> 556 589  [UPDATE] MinLatency(us) 268 264  [UPDATE] MaxLatency(us) 709604
> 695863  [UPDATE] 95thPercentileLatency(ms) 0 0  [UPDATE]
> 99thPercentileLatency(ms) 1 2  [READ] Operations 500533 500269  [READ]
> AverageLatency(us) 147 144  [READ] MinLatency(us) 0 0  [READ]
> MaxLatency(us) 571294 495148  [READ] 95thPercentileLatency(ms) 0 0  [READ]
> 99thPercentileLatency(ms) 0 0
>
>
>
>  *Workload C*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  [OVERALL] RunTime(ms) 100091 100022  [OVERALL] Throughput(ops/sec) 99909
> 99978  [READ] Operations 9916831 10000000  [READ] AverageLatency(us) 524
> 526  [READ] MinLatency(us) 273 269  [READ] MaxLatency(us) 737108 741634
> [READ] 95thPercentileLatency(ms) 0 0  [READ] 99thPercentileLatency(ms) 1 2
>
>
>
>  *Workload D*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  [OVERALL] RunTime(ms) 114244 103308  [OVERALL] Throughput(ops/sec) 89114
> 96809  [INSERT] Operations 9499965 9500306  [INSERT] AverageLatency(us)
> 1145 668  [INSERT] MinLatency(us) 270 271  [INSERT] MaxLatency(us) 4598999
> 3291540  [INSERT] 95thPercentileLatency(ms) 6 1  [INSERT]
> 99thPercentileLatency(ms) 13 3  [READ] Operations 500035 499694  [READ]
> AverageLatency(us) 14 15  [READ] MinLatency(us) 4 4  [READ] MaxLatency(us)
> 494730 495198  [READ] 95thPercentileLatency(ms) 0 0  [READ]
> 99thPercentileLatency(ms) 0 0
>
>
>
>  *​​Workload E*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  [OVERALL] RunTime(ms) 1600910 2078826  [OVERALL] Throughput(ops/sec) 6308
> 4835  [INSERT] Operations 499131 500322  [INSERT] AverageLatency(us) 14 17
> [INSERT] MinLatency(us) 5 5  [INSERT] MaxLatency(us) 506079 564468
> [INSERT] 95thPercentileLatency(ms) 0 0  [INSERT] 99thPercentileLatency(ms)
> 0 0  [SCAN] Operations 9500869 9499678  [SCAN] AverageLatency(us)
> ​​
> ​​
> 26636 34620  [SCAN] MinLatency(us) 746 755  [SCAN] MaxLatency(us) 8067864
> 4615914  [SCAN] 95thPercentileLatency(ms) 117 136  [SCAN]
> 99thPercentileLatency(ms) 169 187
>
>
>
>  *Workload F*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  [OVERALL] RunTime(ms) 100876 100820  [OVERALL] Throughput(ops/sec) 99133
> 99187  [UPDATE] Operations 10000000 10000000  [UPDATE] AverageLatency(us)
> 737 746  [UPDATE] MinLatency(us) 273 272  [UPDATE] MaxLatency(us) 759812
> 747124  [UPDATE] 95thPercentileLatency(ms) 1 1  [UPDATE]
> 99thPercentileLatency(ms) 5 6  [READ-MODIFY-WRITE] Operations 5000370
> 5000082  [READ-MODIFY-WRITE] AverageLatency(us) 742 750
> [READ-MODIFY-WRITE] MinLatency(us) 280 279  [READ-MODIFY-WRITE]
> MaxLatency(us) 756180 747197  [READ-MODIFY-WRITE]
> 95thPercentileLatency(ms) 1 1  [READ-MODIFY-WRITE]
> 99thPercentileLatency(ms) 5 6  [READ] Operations 5000530 5000242  [READ]
> AverageLatency(us) 22 17  [READ] MinLatency(us) 0 0  [READ] MaxLatency(us)
> 1551953 1097394  [READ] 95thPercentileLatency(ms) 0 0  [READ]
> 99thPercentileLatency(ms) 0 0
> ​
>
> ​​
> --
> Best regards,
>
>    - Andy
>
> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
> (via Tom White)
>



-- 
Best regards,

   - Andy

Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
(via Tom White)

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