hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Performance degradation in master (compared to 2-alpha-1)
Date Tue, 28 Nov 2017 19:01:24 GMT
Mike:
Which JIRA was the important bug-fix ?

Thanks

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 9:16 AM, Mike Drob <mdrob@apache.org> wrote:

> Eshcar - do you have time to try the other alpha releases and see where
> exactly we introduced the regressions?
>
> Also, I'm worried that the performance regression may be related to an
> important bug-fix, where before we may have had fast writes but also risked
> incorrect behavior somehow.
>
> Mike
>
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 2:48 AM, Eshcar Hillel <eshcar@oath.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> > I agree, so will wait till we focus on performance.
> > Just one more update, I also ran the same experiment (write-only) with
> > banch-2 beta-1.Here is a summary of the throughput I see in each
> tag/branch:
> > -------------------------------              | BASIC | NONE  |
> > -------------------------------2-alpha-1| 110K   | 80K     |
> > 2-beta-1 |  81K    | 62K     |
> > master    | 60K     | 55K     |-------------------------------
> > This means there are multiple sources for the regression.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> >     On Saturday, November 25, 2017, 7:44:01 AM GMT+2, 张铎(Duo Zhang) <
> > palomino219@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >  I think first we need a release plan on when we will begin to focus on
> the
> > performance issue?
> >
> > I do not think it is a good time to focus on performance issue now as we
> > haven’t stabilized our build yet. The performance regression may come
> back
> > again after some bug fixes and maybe we use a wrong way to increase
> > performance and finally we find that it is just a bug...
> >
> > Of course I do not mean we can not do any performance related issues now,
> > for example, HBASE-19338 is a good catch and can be fixed right now.
> >
> > And also, for AsyncFSWAL and in memory compaction, we need to consider
> the
> > performance right now as they are born for performance, but let’s focus
> on
> > the comparison to other policies, not a previous release so we can find
> the
> > correct things to fix.
> >
> > Of course, if there is a big performance downgrading comparing to the
> > previous release and we find it then we should tell others, just like
> this
> > email. An earlier notification is always welcomed.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Stack <stack@duboce.net>于2017年11月25日 周六13:22写道:
> >
> > > On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 7:35 AM, Eshcar Hillel <eshcar@oath.com.invalid
> >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Happy Thanksgiving all,
> > > >
> > >
> > > And to you Eshcar.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > In recent benchmarks I ran in HBASE-18294 I discovered major
> > performance
> > > > degradation of master code w.r.t 2-alpha-1 code.I am running
> write-only
> > > > workload (similar to the one reported in HBASE-16417). I am using the
> > > same
> > > > hardware and same configuration settings (specifically, I testes both
> > > basic
> > > > memstore compaction with optimal parameters, and no memsore
> > > > compaction).While in 2-alpha-1 code I see throughput of ~110Kops for
> > > basic
> > > > compaction and ~80Kops for no compaction, in the master code I get
> only
> > > > 60Kops and 55Kops, respectively. *This is almost 50% reduction in
> > > > performance*.
> > > > (1) Did anyone else noticed such degradation?(2) Do we have any
> > > systematic
> > > > automatic/semi-automatic method to track the sources of this
> > performance
> > > > issue?
> > > > Thanks,Eshcar
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On #1, no. I've not done perf compare. I wonder if later alpha versions
> > > include the regression (I'll have to check and see).
> > >
> > > On #2, again no. I intend to do a bit of perf tuning and compare before
> > > release.
> > >
> > > If you don't file an issue, I will do so later for myself as a task to
> > > compare at least to alpha-1.
> > >
> > > Thanks Eshcar,
> > >
> > > St.Ack
> > >
> >
>

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