hbase-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From lars hofhansl <lhofha...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: HBase & BigTable + History: Can it run decently on a 512MB machine? What's the difference between the two?
Date Mon, 05 Mar 2012 22:12:30 GMT
This is a hypothetical question. Why do you care?
Can you run current Windows on '03 machines? Or Linux (with KDE/Gnome)?

HBase is designed for modern machines.



________________________________
 From: D S <desmisnm@gmail.com>
To: user@hbase.apache.org 
Sent: Monday, March 5, 2012 11:39 AM
Subject: Re: HBase & BigTable + History: Can it run decently on a 512MB machine? What's
the difference between the two?
 
On 3/5/12, Michael Drzal <mdrzal@gmail.com> wrote:
> You really need to consider the entire historical context here.  A lot of
> the memory used in hbase is buffering writes to disk and for the block
> cache.  These days, it isn't unreasonable to get 12 2-3TB disks in a
> commodity server.  Back in 2003, you would not get as many disks, and they
> would be much smaller.  One way to think about it is the ratio of RAM/disk
> space or more operationally what your cache hit ratio is and how busy your
> disk drives are.
>
>   Drz
>
> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 3:25 AM, D S <desmisnm@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm learning more about HBase and I'm curious how much of HBase is
>> actually based on Google's original dB.  In Google's origins stories,
>> they are well known for using low cost commodity hardware in scale in
>> order to store their web database.
>>
>> Almost every blog I read about HBase tells me it's a clone of
>> BigTable.  Almost every blog I've read about HBase also tells me to
>> use a lot of RAM - gigabytes worth.  Some even tell me not to even
>> consider HBase with less than 4GB of RAM.
>>
>> If I remember my history correctly, a commodity machine in the year
>> 2003 had around 512MB to 1GB of RAM in it.  The fancier ones had, 2GB.
>>  From everything I've read, running HBase on such machines is a very
>> bad idea yet this was the machines readily available in the year 2003
>> when Google started it's growth.
>>
>> I'm confused at the moment.  Can someone give me a bit of background
>> about how HBase performance is handled from the "low" end which was
>> considered "high" end back then?  Should I assume that HBase is just a
>> clone of BigTable?  What is HBase's history?  Are the blogs wrong?
>>
>> Thanks for any clarification anyone can give.
>>
>

Is HBase's configuration options robust enough that it could go back
and run well on those 2003 specs by a bit of tweaking if that what was
desired?
Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message