Is higher better or worse? :) Any idea what happened on the "Write 5" test?
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 10:42 AM, Elliott Clark <[email protected]> wrote: > http://www.scribd.com/eclark847297/d/92715238-0-94-0-RC3-Cluster-Perf > > On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 7:42 PM, Ted Yu <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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 <[email protected] >> >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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected] >> > > >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 < >> [email protected] >> > > > >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 < >> > > [email protected] >> > > > >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 <[email protected]> >> 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 < >> > > [email protected] >> > > > >> > >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 <[email protected]> >> > > 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 < >> > > > >> [email protected] >> > > > >> > > > >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 < >> > > > >> [email protected] >> > > > >> > > > >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 <[email protected]> >> > > > >> > > > >> To: [email protected]; lars hofhansl < >> > [email protected] >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> 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 < >> > > > >> [email protected]> >> > > > >> > > > >> 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 >> > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> -- Todd Lipcon Software Engineer, Cloudera
