I agree it was just a micro benchmark with no guarantee that it relates to real world. With it just being standalone I didn't think anyone should take the numbers as 100% representative. Really I was just trying to shake out any weird behaviors and the fact that we got a big speed up was interesting.
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 12:15 AM, Mikael Sitruk <mikael.sit...@gmail.com>wrote: > Hi guys > Looking at the posted slide/pictures for the benchmark the > following intriguing me: > 1. The recordcount is only 100,000 > 2. workoloada is: read 50%, update 50% and zipfian distribution even with > 5M operations count, the same keys are updated again and again. > 3. heap size 10G > > Therefore it might be that the dataset is too small (even with 3 versions > configured we have = 3(version)*100,000(keys)*1KB (size of record) = 300 MB > of "live" dataset ? > And approximately the number of store files will be 5x10^6 (op > count)*1KB(record size)/256MB(max store file size (Default))=>20 store > file, even taking factor of 10 for metadata (record key, in store files) we > will get 200 files. > if a major compaction is running it will shrink all the storefile to a > single small one. > What I try to say is - if the maths are correct - (please note that i did > not take into account compression which just make things better), can we > relate on such scenario for performance benchmark with such small dataset > and such distribution? > > Regards > Mikael.S > > On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 1:10 AM, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I am surprised to see 0.92.1 exhibit such unfavorable performance > profile. > > Let's see whether cluster testing gives us similar results. > > > > On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 3:07 PM, Elliott Clark <ecl...@stumbleupon.com > > >wrote: > > > > > Sure, sorry about that. > > > > > > http://imgur.com/waxlS > > > > > > > > > http://www.scribd.com/eclark847297/d/92151092-Hbase-0-94-0-RC3-Local-YCSB-Perf > > > > > > On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 3:01 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Elliot: > > > > Thanks for the report. > > > > Can you publish results somewhere else ? > > > > Attachments were stripped off. > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Elliott Clark < > ecl...@stumbleupon.com > > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > I ran some tests of local filesystem YCSB. I used the 0.90 client > for > > > > > 0.90.6. For the rest of the tests I used 0.92 clients. The results > > are > > > > > attached. > > > > > > > > > > 0.90 -> 0.94.0RC3 13% faster > > > > > 0.92 -> 0.94.0RC3 50% faster > > > > > > > > > > This seems to be a pretty large performance improvement. I'll run > > > some > > > > > tests on a cluster later today. > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 10:20 PM, lars hofhansl < > lhofha...@yahoo.com > > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> Thanks Todd. > > > > >> > > > > >> I agree with doing source code releases going forward. > > > > >> > > > > >> For that, would it be sufficient to just vote against an SVN tag? > > > > >> Tarballs can then be pulled straight from that tag. > > > > >> > > > > >> -- Lars > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> ----- Original Message ----- > > > > >> From: Todd Lipcon <t...@cloudera.com> > > > > >> To: dev@hbase.apache.org; lars hofhansl <lhofha...@yahoo.com> > > > > >> Cc: > > > > >> Sent: Tuesday, May 1, 2012 9:35 PM > > > > >> Subject: Re: ANN: The third hbase 0.94.0 release candidate is > > > available > > > > >> for download > > > > >> > > > > >> +1 from me, I took it for a spin on the local filesystem with some > > > YCSB > > > > >> load. > > > > >> > > > > >> Here is my signature on the non-secure tarball. > > > > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > > >> Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) > > > > >> > > > > >> iEYEABECAAYFAk+guTIACgkQXkPKua7Hfq9YSQCeMnCQ4XFqLjw+PF8IXNPDug+t > > > > >> h90AoJ+q4YSg4JbfiCmaXenadWSRU1of > > > > >> =CdfZ > > > > >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > > >> > > > > >> I didn't check out the secure tarball. > > > > >> > > > > >> I think for future releases we should do the voting against a > source > > > tar > > > > >> (ie an svn export) since we now produce multiple binaries, and > it's > > > > easier > > > > >> to verify that a source tar matches SVN, etc. > > > > >> > > > > >> -Todd > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 4:26 PM, lars hofhansl < > lhofha...@yahoo.com> > > > > >> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> > The third 0.94.0 RC is available for download here: > > > > >> > http://people.apache.org/~larsh/hbase-0.94.0-rc3/ > > > > >> > (My gpg key is available from pgp.mit.edu. Key id: 7CA45750) > > > > >> > > > > > >> > HBase 0.94 is a performance release, and there are some > > interesting > > > > new > > > > >> > features as well. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > It is wire compatible with 0.92.x. 0.92 clients should work with > > > 0.94 > > > > >> > servers and vice versa. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > You can do a rolling restart to get your 0.92.x HBase up on this > > > > >> 0.94.0RC. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > The full list of changes is available here: > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12310753&version=12316419 > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Please take this RC for a spin, check out the doc, etc, and vote > > > +1/-1 > > > > >> by > > > > >> > May 8th on whether we should release this as 0.94.0. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Thanks. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > -- Lars > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> -- > > > > >> Todd Lipcon > > > > >> Software Engineer, Cloudera > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
