With the cluster size that I'm testing YCSB was stressing the client machine more than the cluster. I was saturating the network of the test machine. So I switched over to pe; while it doesn't have a realistic work load it is better than nothing.
On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 3:07 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks for the update, Elliot. > > If I read your post correctly, you're using PE. ycsb is better measuring > performance, from my experience. > > Cheers > > On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 3:04 PM, Elliott Clark <ecl...@stumbleupon.com > >wrote: > > > So I got 94.0rc3 up on a cluster and tried to break it, Killing masters > and > > killing rs. Everything seems good. hbck reports everything is good. And > > all my reads succeed. > > > > I'll post cluster benchmark numbers once they are done running. Should > > only be a couple more hours of pe runs. > > > > Looks great to me. > > On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Elliott Clark <ecl...@stumbleupon.com > > >wrote: > > > > > 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 > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
