hbase-issues mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "ramkrishna.s.vasudevan (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (HBASE-16890) Analyze the performance of AsyncWAL and fix the same
Date Mon, 20 Nov 2017 08:57:00 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-16890?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16258963#comment-16258963
] 

ramkrishna.s.vasudevan commented on HBASE-16890:
------------------------------------------------

bq.No. But I like the numbers you are getting. Can you paste config. and command you ran so
can repro? Thanks 
Sure. Will do it. 
{code}
./hbase org.apache.hadoop.hbase.PerformanceEvaluation --nomapred  --size=25 --presplit=20
 --writeToWAL=true --bloomFilter=ROW --inmemoryCompaction=NONE randomWrite 50
{code}
This is what we tried. So before doing async WAL need to change the config to write with AsyncWAL.
{code}
<property>
        <name>hbase.wal.provider</name>
        <value>asyncfs</value>
</property>
{code}
bq.Personally I think YCSB result is more persuasive. Could we help get some number here?
Sure. If [~chancelq] does not have time I can try it with YCSB not an issue. But one good
thing is that previously even for this small load there was a difference in performance with
Async. 
[~carp84]
What is your feedback with AsyncWAL and its perf in case you have already tried in your prod
cluster? That will be a good take away here rather than small tests.


> 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-beta-1
>
>         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
(v6.4.14#64029)

Mime
View raw message