Mailing-List: contact user-help@hbase.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: user@hbase.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of anoop.hbase@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.216.43 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CALckxSOsu+9cFq_ZHrcts6riPXZ+KkZQsvHECYSqdkuZQAQ88A@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CALckxSPP7Hw-Ez359O2+O27kr+8MmT9q-dYWj=GVOns72EawnQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALte62xC6805nY1hcwZtcTNLSqOJQWB6P5EtSoUJz2_zVCGMOg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALckxSNfqPHQ_9y8sdQ-5Y4TD_wnKNkPx4GsKJkdeGAbLEEuTg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAT7MkpN_u9-=_=SmJYFdk=1eQx+6891J88_ZgqHjdUEsbE7ng@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALckxSN9wE7S4kqzF5eg90cWceT4=kAOfk33A_nyZdq0TBqP6A@mail.gmail.com>
	<71A49179-C671-4290-AAB0-979AB7FCC2FA@gmail.com>
	<CALckxSOQcgxu8gXQUFTwm_G+PB2v2+zthoKNPxHq7nqXwtyqEg@mail.gmail.com>
	<026442B4-7AED-4110-BC67-668B51C2BCF5@gmail.com>
	<CALckxSO5-p2SOY+5g171ncutXO2wqY4JSghRrJKHiDn9YJbrJQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALckxSMOADn9=KTyf6fd5m47Y1rLO4OxbA-VzV=Jb9Khg+XzuQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALte62wW37Y4qJdPKJZrFKQef_U2bM4QrnLRJ2GD0fzM2xQ7uQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALckxSOsu+9cFq_ZHrcts6riPXZ+KkZQsvHECYSqdkuZQAQ88A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 11:59:39 +0530
Message-ID: 
 <CAOtJ30r7E9_YRe8ur1vZidKKHsCD07Orh38ZaCrpHuCiXMeBow@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: max regionserver handler count
From: Anoop John <anoop.hbase@gmail.com>
To: user@hbase.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bb046f037aaad04db8e20b4

--047d7bb046f037aaad04db8e20b4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

You are making use of batch Gets?  get(List)

-Anoop-

On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Viral Bajaria <viral.bajaria@gmail.com>wrote:

> Thanks for getting back, Ted. I totally understand other priorities and
> will wait for some feedback. I am adding some more info to this post to
> allow better diagnosing of performance.
>
> I hit my region servers with a lot of GET requests (~20K per second per
> regionserver) using asynchbase in my test environment, the storage pattern
> is very similar to OpenTSDB though with a lot more columns. Each row is
> around 45-50 bytes long. The regionservers have a lot of RAM available to
> them (48 out of 60 GB) and they are not sharing resources with anyone else,
> so memory is not under pressure. The total # of rows in the table is around
> 100M and growing (there is a put process too)
>
> GETs take over 15s for 16K rows, and I don't see any operationTooSlow logs
> in the regionserver logs either. PUTs take around 1s for 16K rows (deferred
> log flush is enabled though).
>
> I looked at the RPC stats and it seems the RPC threads were always doing
> something and I assumed my requests were waiting on handlers and so thought
> of experimenting by increasing number of handlers. But as mentioned in my
> thread, going above 10K kills my regionserver.
>
> Thanks,
> Viral
>
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 9:43 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Viral:
> > I am currently dealing with some high priority bugs so I didn't have time
> > to look deeper into your case.
> >
> > My feeling is that raising max regionserver handler count shouldn't be
> the
> > key to boosting performance.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
>

--047d7bb046f037aaad04db8e20b4--