hbase-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Vladimir Rodionov <vladrodio...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Multiwal performance with HBase 1.x
Date Fri, 18 Sep 2015 16:55:52 GMT
Hi, Jingcheng

You postpone compaction until your test completes by setting number of
blocking stores to 120. That is kind of cheating :)
As I said previously, in a long run, compaction rules the world - not
number of wal files. In a real production setting, the existing write
performance
is more than adequate (avg load per RS usually less than 1MB/sec). Multiwal
has probably its value if someone need to load quick large volume of data,
but ... why do not use bulk load instead?

Thank for letting us know that beefy servers with 8 SSDs can sustain such a
huge load.

-Vlad



On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 10:30 PM, Jingcheng Du <jingcheng.du@intel.com>
wrote:

> More information for the test.
> I use ycsb 0.3.0 for the test.
> The command line is "./ycsb load hbase-10 -P ../workloads/workload -threads
> 200 -p columnfamily=family -p clientbuffering=true -s > workload.dat"
> The workload is, the data size is slightly less than 1TB:
> fieldcount=5
> fieldlength=200
> recordcount=1000000000
> maxexecutiontime=86400
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://apache-hbase.679495.n3.nabble.com/Multiwal-performance-with-HBase-1-x-tp4074403p4074731.html
> Sent from the HBase User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message