Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-hbase-issues-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 89229 invoked from network); 3 Dec 2010 05:02:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 3 Dec 2010 05:02:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 79987 invoked by uid 500); 3 Dec 2010 05:02:36 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-hbase-issues-archive@hbase.apache.org Received: (qmail 79893 invoked by uid 500); 3 Dec 2010 05:02:36 -0000 Mailing-List: contact issues-help@hbase.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list issues@hbase.apache.org Received: (qmail 79799 invoked by uid 99); 3 Dec 2010 05:02:35 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 03 Dec 2010 05:02:35 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2000.0 required=10.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received: from [140.211.11.22] (HELO thor.apache.org) (140.211.11.22) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 03 Dec 2010 05:02:33 +0000 Received: from thor (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by thor.apache.org (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id oB352BXt019582 for ; Fri, 3 Dec 2010 05:02:11 GMT Message-ID: <10845139.88451291352531593.JavaMail.jira@thor> Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 00:02:11 -0500 (EST) From: "stack (JIRA)" To: issues@hbase.apache.org Subject: [jira] Updated: (HBASE-3303) Lower hbase.regionserver.handler.count from 25 back to 10 In-Reply-To: <12099177.82341291327330824.JavaMail.jira@thor> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-JIRA-FingerPrint: 30527f35849b9dde25b450d4833f0394 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-3303?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] stack updated HBASE-3303: ------------------------- Attachment: 3303.txt Here is what I committed. Didn't add to book since don't think it important (not if no difference in throughput). Would rather wait on more evidence before calling this an important configuration. > Lower hbase.regionserver.handler.count from 25 back to 10 > --------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: HBASE-3303 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-3303 > Project: HBase > Issue Type: Improvement > Reporter: Jean-Daniel Cryans > Assignee: Jean-Daniel Cryans > Fix For: 0.90.0 > > Attachments: 3303.txt > > > With HBASE-2506 in mind, I tested a low-memory environment (2GB of heap) with a lot of concurrent writers using the default write buffer to verify if a lower number of handlers actually helps reducing the occurrence full GCs. Very unscientifically, at this moment I think it's safe to say that yes, it helps. > With the defaults, I saw a region server struggling more and more because the random inserters at some point started filling up all the handlers and were all BLOCKED trying to sync the WAL. It's safe to say that each of those clients carried a payload that the GC cannot get rid of and it's one that we don't account for (as opposed to MemStore and the block cache). > With a much lower setting of 5, I didn't see the situation. > It kind of confirms my hypothesis but I need to do more proper testing. In the mean time, in order to lower the onslaught of users that write to the ML complaining about either GCs or OOMEs, I think we should set the handlers back to what it was originally (10) for 0.90.0 and add some documentation about configuring hbase.regionserver.handler.count > I'd like to hear others' thoughts. -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.