0.94 also has LoadTestTool (from FB) I have used it to do some cluster load testing.
Just FYI On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 3:14 PM, Elliott Clark <ecl...@stumbleupon.com>wrote: > 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 > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
