14 machine
1 Master (nn 2nn jt hmaster) 13 slaves (dn tt rs) -> 4hhd's each with 2xQuad Core intel w/HT Sampling of Configs: -Xmx10G -XX:CMSInitiatingOccupancyFraction=75 -XX:NewSize=256m -XX:MaxNewSize=256m hbase.hregion.memstore.flush.size = 2147483648 hbase.hregion.max.filesize = 2147483648 hbase.rpc.compression = snappy dfs.client.read.shortcircuit = true hbase.ipc.client.tcpnodelay = false mapred.tasktracker.map.tasks.maximum = 17 The commands run to create the tables and run the tests should be in the previous sheets. It seem like the PerformanceEvaluation tests are pretty noisy so I wouldn't trust the smaller runs on page 1; that's why I did the larger runs on page 2. On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 1:21 PM, lars hofhansl <lhofha...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Hmm... So our "performance release" is slightly slower than 0.92. > With all the optimizations that went into 0.94 I find that a bit hard to > believe. > > Can you tell us more about the testing? How many machines, setup, was that > test IO or CPU bound, etc? > Anything else of note? > > Thanks for doing this! > > -- Lars > > ________________________________ > From: Elliott Clark <ecl...@stumbleupon.com> > To: dev@hbase.apache.org > Sent: Monday, May 7, 2012 11:07 AM > Subject: Re: ANN: The third hbase 0.94.0 release candidate is available > for download > > 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 <t...@cloudera.com> 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 <ecl...@stumbleupon.com> > > 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 <yuzhih...@gmail.com> 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 <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 > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Todd Lipcon > > Software Engineer, Cloudera > > >
