Sorry everything is in elapsed time as reported by Elapsed time in milliseconds. So higher is worse.
The standard deviation on 0.92.1 writes is 4,591,384 so Write 5 is a little outside of 1 std dev. Not really sure what happened on that test, but it does appear that PE is very noisy. On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 10:47 AM, Todd Lipcon <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >
