hbase-issues mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Anoop Sam John (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (HBASE-17035) Check why we roll a wal writer at 10MB when the configured roll size is 120M+ with AsyncFSWAL
Date Tue, 08 Nov 2016 04:12:58 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-17035?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15646432#comment-15646432
] 

Anoop Sam John commented on HBASE-17035:
----------------------------------------

So how is the perf now compared to old wal?  U see some improve? Or there may be some more
things.
Elsewhere mentioned abt the #syncs more in async wal.  So seems like the latency associated
with sync() op is much reduced and so we get more frequent sync calls getting passed as IO
op. When the sync() is taking time, the next sync will accumulate more append and so reduced
total# syncs. So this is a clear trade off?

> Check why we roll a wal writer at 10MB when the configured roll size is 120M+ with AsyncFSWAL
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: HBASE-17035
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-17035
>             Project: HBase
>          Issue Type: Sub-task
>          Components: wal
>    Affects Versions: 2.0.0
>            Reporter: Duo Zhang
>            Assignee: Duo Zhang
>             Fix For: 2.0.0
>
>
> Found this when addressing HBASE-16890. It is one of the possible reason that why AsyncFSWAL
performs worse than FSHLog when running PE tool.
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-16890?focusedCommentId=15636688&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-15636688



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

Mime
View raw message