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 7F62B200C4E for ; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 05:56:46 +0100 (CET) Received: by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) id 7E094160B91; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 04:56:46 +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 C4FA5160B86 for ; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 05:56:45 +0100 (CET) Received: (qmail 2952 invoked by uid 500); 23 Mar 2017 04:56:45 -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 2941 invoked by uid 99); 23 Mar 2017 04:56:44 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd4-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 04:56:44 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd4-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd4-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id 90207C0C6D for ; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 04:56:44 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd4-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -99.349 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.349 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.652, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=disabled Received: from mx1-lw-us.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd4-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.11]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wBqc8mMxVPGw for ; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 04:56:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mailrelay1-us-west.apache.org (mailrelay1-us-west.apache.org [209.188.14.139]) by mx1-lw-us.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-lw-us.apache.org) with ESMTP id 90FBD5FCD3 for ; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 04:56:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from jira-lw-us.apache.org (unknown [207.244.88.139]) by mailrelay1-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mailrelay1-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id 549CFE0A31 for ; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 04:56:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from jira-lw-us.apache.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jira-lw-us.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at jira-lw-us.apache.org) with ESMTP id BB81D254EB for ; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 04:56:41 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 04:56:41 +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: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 04:56:46 -0000 [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-16890?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15937726#comment-15937726 ] Duo Zhang commented on HBASE-16890: ----------------------------------- {quote} So can increase the number of writers in AsynWAL also? Will that help? {quote} It is designed to use only one thread. Multiwal can solve the problem I think. > 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 > Priority: Blocker > Fix For: 2.0.0 > > Attachments: async.svg, AsyncWAL_disruptor_1 (2).patch, AsyncWAL_disruptor_3.patch, AsyncWAL_disruptor_3.patch, AsyncWAL_disruptor_4.patch, AsyncWAL_disruptor_6.patch, AsyncWAL_disruptor.patch, classic.svg, contention_defaultWAL.png, contention.png, HBASE-16890-rc-v2.patch, HBASE-16890-rc-v3.patch, HBASE-16890-remove-contention.patch, HBASE-16890-remove-contention-v1.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 > > > 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 (v6.3.15#6346)