hbase-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matthew LeMieux <...@mlogiciels.com>
Subject Re: Slow Inserts on EC2 Cluster
Date Fri, 03 Sep 2010 20:38:22 GMT
Thank you for the pointer.  I'm not sure if this is the bug I was encountering.  This particular
bug points to a problem with how load was calculated.  The problem I was experiencing seemed
to be a real issue that affected performance, not just reporting.  

They published a fix on 20100827, but it doesn't seem to address the real problem of performance,
just load reporting.  In any case, I've downgraded from ubuntu lucid (10.04) to karmic (9.1)
and am seeing a load reporting and response that is far more intuitive.   I recommend avoiding
lucid (at least in EC2).  

I've also upgraded to the latest release candidate that J-D posted (http://people.apache.org/~jdcryans/hbase-0.89.20100830-candidate-1/).
 (previously I was using CDH3)

I'm very happy with the results.  Stability is much better.  It will take more than light
breeze to knock the cluster over now!

Thank you for your help,

Matthew


On Sep 1, 2010, at 10:17 AM, Gary Helmling wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 7:24 AM, Matthew LeMieux <mdl@mlogiciels.com> wrote:
> 
>> I'm starting to find that EC2 is not reliable enough to support HBase.  I'm
>> running into 2 things that might be related:
>> 
>> 1) On idle machines that are apparently doing nothing (reports of <3% CPU
>> utilization, no I/O wait)  the load is reported as being higher than the
>> number of cores.   I don't know if attachments work on the mailing list, but
>> I attached a small image anyway to illustrate this confusing thing.  (I've
>> been using m1.large and m2.xlarge running CDH3)
>> 
>> 
> If you're using AMIs based on the latest Ubuntu (10.4), theres a known
> kernel issue that seems to be causing high loads while idle.  More info
> here:
> 
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux-ec2/+bug/574910
> 
> 
> It's possible other distros running 2.6.32 may be showing the same problem
> as well.


Mime
View raw message