The numbers below were gathered bypassing disk IO and network IO. Meaning, in production system, you wouldn't see performance gain of this magnitude.
bq. We are evaluating it. Please let us know the result of your evaluation. bq. The image was passed to me by a co-worker in China It would be prudent to wait for the slides to be posted on the conference website. Cheers On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 6:09 AM, Jerry He <jerry...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, Ted > > Do you have the slides? > I don't have the full slides. The image was passed to me by a co-worker in > China. We are evaluating it. > I am copying the numbers below: > > Release 3 YCSB clients (puts/seconds) 5 YCSB clients > (puts/seconds) > 0.94.14 178K 220K > 0.96.0 20K 15K > 0.96.1 173K 168K > > Release 10 YCSB clients (reads/seconds) 25 YCSB clients > (reads/seconds) > 0.94.14 50K 52K > 0.96.0 23K 23K > 0.96.1 52K 54K > > > On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Jerry: > > Where did you obtain the picture ? > > > > If you got it from slides posted on China Hadoop Summit website, can you > > share the link ? > > > > Cheers > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 3:55 AM, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > The picture didn't go through. > > > > > > Correction: the comparison between hbase 0.96.0 and 0.96.1 was done by > > > Nicolas Liochon. This was not done at EBay. > > > > > > In my talk, there was another comparison to show that MTTR improved a > lot > > > from 0.94 to 0.96 - this was done at EBay. > > > > > > When Stack cuts 0.96.1 RC0, you would get the list of JIRAs that > > > contributed to the speedup from 0.96.0 to 0.96.1 > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 3:50 AM, Jerry He <jerry...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >> Hi, Ted, and hbase experts > > >> > > >> Below picture is a performance comparison between hbase 0.96.0 and > > >> 0.96.1, shared by Ted Yu in China Hadoop Summit today. This perf > > testing is > > >> said to be executed on ebay's real cluster. > > >> > > >> It is surprising 0.96.0 is such worse compared to 0.96.1 and even > > >> 0.94.14. Are these numbers official and the performance degradation > > true? > > >> What patch in 0.96.1 fixed this? > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > >
