Mailing-List: contact dev-help@hbase.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@hbase.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of saint.ack@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.217.173 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: saint.ack@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: 
 <CADcMMgF5RdWk8kC+64sVnam+j8TNWjBbv3fhAua=vReqJjtkCg@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CADcMMgF5RdWk8kC+64sVnam+j8TNWjBbv3fhAua=vReqJjtkCg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2014 13:18:55 -0700
Message-ID: 
 <CADcMMgG1tm6e1z9b9PzHxh7x1sAbP48-HjqQH2NqRettgxf=jg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: blockcache 101
From: Stack <stack@duboce.net>
To: HBase Dev List <dev@hbase.apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1134945229701c050023ea50

--001a1134945229701c050023ea50
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Here is a follow up to Nick's blockcache 101 that compares a number of
deploys x loadings and makes recommendation: https://blogs.apache.org/hbase/
St.Ack


On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 9:22 PM, Stack <stack@duboce.net> wrote:

> Nick:
>
> + You measure 99th percentile.  Did you take measure of average/mean
> response times doing your blockcache comparison?  (Our LarsHofhansl had it
> that that on average reads out of bucket cache were a good bit slower).  Or
> is this a TODO?
> + We should just remove slabcache because bucket cache is consistently
> better and why have two means of doing same thing?  Or, do you need more
> proof bucketcache subsumes slabcache?
>
> Thanks boss,
> St.Ack
>
>

--001a1134945229701c050023ea50--