On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 9:41 AM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari <jean-m...@spaggiari.org > wrote:
> Got it. > > I can't run the integration tests for now because I'm lacking some > servers :( Need to complete some HBase on RAID tests before I can get > those new servers > > First thing is, start-hbase.cmd has the execute flag set. I don't > think it's required. And it will help with tabulation feature if we > can un-set it. > > For 0.96.0RC0 here are my results: > First, I get 2 .out files. each time I start the server, instead of > usually one... With the same timestamp. > > -rw-r--r-- 1 jmspaggiari jmspaggiari 0 Aug 31 15:38 > hbase-jmspaggiari-master-t430s.out > -rw-r--r-- 1 jmspaggiari jmspaggiari 0 Aug 31 15:38 > hbase-jmspaggiari-master-t430s.out.1 > > > In the UI, we say "The .META. table holds references to all User Table > regions" but the table name is "hbase:meta" and not ".META." > > On the logs, I found this exception that I did not had before: > 2013-08-31 18:45:05,490 WARN > [NIOServerCxn.Factory:0.0.0.0/0.0.0.0:2181] server.NIOServerCnxn: > caught end of stream exception > EndOfStreamException: Unable to read additional data from client > sessionid 0x140d68bb9d50004, likely client has closed socket > at > org.apache.zookeeper.server.NIOServerCnxn.doIO(NIOServerCnxn.java:220) > at > org.apache.zookeeper.server.NIOServerCnxnFactory.run(NIOServerCnxnFactory.java:208) > at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:662) > > > I ran PE over 48h. I don't have another 0.96 baseline to compare with, > so I compared with 0.94. > org.apache.hadoop.hbase.PerformanceEvaluation$RandomSeekScanTest is > about 3 times slower with 0.96. > org.apache.hadoop.hbase.PerformanceEvaluation$RandomScanWithRange100Test > seems to be 2 times faster. > > Writes also are faster but I changed my hard drive since I ran 0.94. > So I'm currently re-running 0.94 and will provide another more > accurate comparison soon. > > Ran LoadTestTool: Failed to write keys: 0 > > I have not been able to run IntegrationTestLoadAndVerify nor > IntegrationTestBigLinkedList because of the lack of servers. > > So overall, it seems to be working fine, but I have not been able to > test this release as deeply as I'm usually testing the 0.94 releases. > Thank you for taking it for a spin JMS -- you the man. If you don't open issues for the teething stuff, I will. So 0.96 is slower doing RandomSeekScanTest but faster on your other tests? I can take a look too. St.Ack
