I did some tests yesterday, on this. I will send them in a separate thread.
On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 5:10 AM, lars hofhansl <[email protected]> wrote: > In my measurements 0.94 has been getting faster with each release in both > read and write performance. > I wonder how representative PE is after all; it only tests via the local > FS layer (not HDFS), among other issues. > > -- Lars > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Jean-Marc Spaggiari <[email protected]> > To: [email protected]; lars hofhansl <[email protected]> > Cc: > Sent: Friday, June 28, 2013 8:03 PM > Subject: Re: 30% random performance in 0.95+ > > I think we should do that on 0.94 as well. I don't see any good reason > to not do it. > > JM > > 2013/6/28 lars hofhansl <[email protected]>: > > Yep. > > Now the question is: Make these changes to 0.94 as well? Or just > document these better. > > > > -- Lars > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> > > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; lars hofhansl < > [email protected]> > > Cc: > > Sent: Friday, June 28, 2013 2:08 PM > > Subject: Re: 30% random performance in 0.95+ > > > > I've been thinking about how to periodically search through some of our > > parameter space to see what changes to defaults are better all the way > > around. Probably will so something based on Bigtop. > > > > > > On Friday, June 28, 2013, lars hofhansl wrote: > > > >> And indeed just this makes a tremendous difference. Unpatched 0.94 with > >> 40% block cache configured is actually faster than 0.95 with the same > block > >> cache size. > >> > >> -- Lars > >> > >> > >> > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: lars hofhansl <[email protected] <javascript:;>> > >> To: "[email protected] <javascript:;>" <[email protected] > <javascript:;> > >> > > >> Cc: > >> Sent: Friday, June 28, 2013 1:34 PM > >> Subject: Re: 30% random performance in 0.95+ > >> > >> Thanks JM, > >> > >> HBASE-8450 (r1485562) is interesting. It increases (among other things) > >> the block cache percentage from 24 to 40%, which would lead to a higher > >> probability of a future random read to hit an already cached block. > >> > >> > >> -- Lars > >> > >> > >> > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: Jean-Marc Spaggiari <[email protected] <javascript:;>> > >> To: [email protected] <javascript:;>; lars hofhansl < > [email protected]<javascript:;> > >> > > >> Cc: > >> Sent: Friday, June 28, 2013 1:18 PM > >> Subject: Re: 30% random performance in 0.95+ > >> > >> I have the script done to run over a list of "svn releases", so if > >> required, just give me a bunch of them or a range and I can restart. > >> Just keep me posted. > >> > >> JM > >> > >> 2013/6/28 lars hofhansl <[email protected] <javascript:;>>: > >> > I did a few more test (on my laptop, which is not quite > representative), > >> and found only a 2-3% improvement from HBASE-8001+HBASE-8012 in the end. > >> > I'll look through the issues that you identified. > >> > > >> > -- Lars > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > ----- Original Message ----- > >> > From: Jean-Marc Spaggiari <[email protected] <javascript:;>> > >> > To: [email protected] <javascript:;> > >> > Cc: > >> > Sent: Friday, June 28, 2013 12:51 PM > >> > Subject: Re: 30% random performance in 0.95+ > >> > > >> > Sorry folks, > >> > > >> > I'm a bit late to run the tests... 0.94.8 and 0.94.9 are currently > >> > running, but here is what I have been able to capture so far for 0.95 > >> > over the last year: > >> > r1357480 1513196 > >> > r1367009 1440244.4 > >> > r1375812 1287143.5 > >> > r1381671 1287200.2 > >> > r1388620 1295262.6 > >> > r1394335 1022140.2 > >> > r1403898 884171.9 > >> > r1410631 804229.9 > >> > r1419787 846816.9 > >> > r1426557 853535.3 > >> > r1433514 873265.1 > >> > r1438972 840666.9 > >> > r1446106 877432.2 > >> > r1452661 883974.8 > >> > r1458421 882233.3 > >> > r1464267 847000.8 > >> > r1478964 877433.5 > >> > r1485868 744905.5 > >> > r1494869 765105.9 > >> > > >> > So seems that there was some improvements between r1367009 and > >> > r1403898 but they are old. Also another major improvement between > >> > r1478964 and r1485868... > >> > > >> > Let me know if you want me to dig further and I will be very happy to > do > >> so. > >> > > >> > JM > >> > > >> > 2013/6/28 Stack <[email protected] <javascript:;>>: > >> >> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 10:53 AM, lars hofhansl <[email protected] > <javascript:;>> > >> wrote: > >> >> > >> >>> I partially tracked this down to HBASE-8001 and HBASE-8012 by > looking > >> at > >> >>> the call stacks in a profiling session. > >> >>> HBASE-8767 is a backport of both patched to 0.94. > >> >>> > >> >> > >> >> Sounds like nice work by Raymond Liu... > >> >> St.Ack > >> > > >> > > > > > > -- > > Best regards, > > > > - Andy > > > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein > > (via Tom White) > > > >
