Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Received: from cust-asf.ponee.io (cust-asf.ponee.io [163.172.22.183]) by cust-asf2.ponee.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10FF9200BC8 for ; Wed, 9 Nov 2016 02:54:00 +0100 (CET) Received: by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) id 0F9AB160B0C; Wed, 9 Nov 2016 01:54:00 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id 58BF9160B0A for ; Wed, 9 Nov 2016 02:53:59 +0100 (CET) Received: (qmail 39106 invoked by uid 500); 9 Nov 2016 01:53:58 -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 39081 invoked by uid 99); 9 Nov 2016 01:53:58 -0000 Received: from arcas.apache.org (HELO arcas) (140.211.11.28) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 09 Nov 2016 01:53:58 +0000 Received: from arcas.apache.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by arcas (Postfix) with ESMTP id 641262C0276 for ; Wed, 9 Nov 2016 01:53:58 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2016 01:53:58 +0000 (UTC) From: "Duo Zhang (JIRA)" To: issues@hbase.apache.org Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Subject: [jira] [Commented] (HBASE-16890) Analyze the performance of AsyncWAL and fix the same MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-JIRA-FingerPrint: 30527f35849b9dde25b450d4833f0394 archived-at: Wed, 09 Nov 2016 01:54:00 -0000 [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-16890?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15649510#comment-15649510 ] Duo Zhang commented on HBASE-16890: ----------------------------------- It is the actual perf. AsyncFSWAL can finish WALPE with less time. But for PE AsyncFSWAL is about twice times slower. Maybe the problem is we put more stress on DN with AsyncFSWAL. In PE we will also do flush and compaction which also put stress on DN. Maybe this could make the DN too busy and slow thus leads to a bad performance. > Analyze the performance of AsyncWAL and fix the same > ---------------------------------------------------- > > Key: HBASE-16890 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-16890 > Project: HBase > Issue Type: Sub-task > Components: wal > Affects Versions: 2.0.0 > Reporter: ramkrishna.s.vasudevan > Assignee: ramkrishna.s.vasudevan > Fix For: 2.0.0 > > Attachments: AsyncWAL_disruptor.patch, AsyncWAL_disruptor_1 (2).patch, AsyncWAL_disruptor_3.patch, AsyncWAL_disruptor_3.patch, AsyncWAL_disruptor_4.patch, AsyncWAL_disruptor_6.patch, HBASE-16890-rc-v2.patch, HBASE-16890-rc-v3.patch, HBASE-16890-remove-contention-v1.patch, HBASE-16890-remove-contention.patch, Screen Shot 2016-10-25 at 7.34.47 PM.png, Screen Shot 2016-10-25 at 7.39.07 PM.png, Screen Shot 2016-10-25 at 7.39.48 PM.png, Screen Shot 2016-11-04 at 5.21.27 PM.png, Screen Shot 2016-11-04 at 5.30.18 PM.png, async.svg, classic.svg, contention.png, contention_defaultWAL.png > > > Tests reveal that AsyncWAL under load in single node cluster performs slower than the Default WAL. This task is to analyze and see if we could fix it. > See some discussions in the tail of JIRA HBASE-15536. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.4#6332)