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 07E65200BC5 for ; Tue, 8 Nov 2016 05:13:00 +0100 (CET) Received: by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) id 067F3160AF9; Tue, 8 Nov 2016 04:13:00 +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 72362160AEC for ; Tue, 8 Nov 2016 05:12:59 +0100 (CET) Received: (qmail 28625 invoked by uid 500); 8 Nov 2016 04:12:58 -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 28603 invoked by uid 99); 8 Nov 2016 04:12:58 -0000 Received: from arcas.apache.org (HELO arcas) (140.211.11.28) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 08 Nov 2016 04:12:58 +0000 Received: from arcas.apache.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by arcas (Postfix) with ESMTP id 601D32C0D55 for ; Tue, 8 Nov 2016 04:12:58 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 04:12:58 +0000 (UTC) From: "Anoop Sam John (JIRA)" To: issues@hbase.apache.org Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Subject: [jira] [Commented] (HBASE-17035) Check why we roll a wal writer at 10MB when the configured roll size is 120M+ with AsyncFSWAL MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-JIRA-FingerPrint: 30527f35849b9dde25b450d4833f0394 archived-at: Tue, 08 Nov 2016 04:13:00 -0000 [ 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)