hbase-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ted Dunning <tdunn...@maprtech.com>
Subject Re: 0.90 latency performance, cdh3b4
Date Wed, 20 Apr 2011 01:28:13 GMT
For a tiny test like this, everything should be in memory and latency
should be very low.

On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 5:39 PM, Dmitriy Lyubimov <dlieu.7@gmail.com> wrote:
> PS so what should latency be for reads in 0.90, assuming moderate thruput?
>
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 5:39 PM, Dmitriy Lyubimov <dlieu.7@gmail.com> wrote:
>> for this test, there's just no more than 40 rows in every given table.
>> This is just a laugh check.
>>
>> so i think it's safe to assume it all goes to same region server.
>>
>> But latency would not depend on which server call is going to, would
>> it? Only throughput would, assuming we are not overloading.
>>
>> And we clearly are not as my single-node local version runs quite ok
>> response times with the same throughput.
>>
>> It's something with either client connections or network latency or
>> ... i don't know what it is. I did not set up the cluster but i gotta
>> troubleshoot it now :)
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 5:23 PM, Ted Dunning <tdunning@maprtech.com> wrote:
>>> How many regions?  How are they distributed?
>>>
>>> Typically it is good to fill the table some what and then drive some
>>> splits and balance operations via the shell.  One more split to make
>>> the regions be local and you should be good to go.  Make sure you have
>>> enough keys in the table to support these splits, of course.
>>>
>>> Under load, you can look at the hbase home page to see how
>>> transactions are spread around your cluster.  Without splits and local
>>> region files, you aren't going to see what you want in terms of
>>> performance.
>>>
>>
>

Mime
View raw message