在 2010年4月2日 下午4:58，Juhani Connolly <[email protected]>写道：
> You're results seem very low, but your system specs are also quite > moderate. > > On 04/02/2010 04:46 PM, Chen Bangzhong wrote: > > Hi, All > > > > I am benchmarking hbase. My HDFS clusters includes 4 servers (Dell 860, > with > > 2 GB RAM). One NameNode, one JobTracker, 2 DataNodes. > > > > My HBase Cluster also comprise 4 servers too. One Master, 2 region and > one > > ZooKeeper. (Dell 860, with 2 GB RAM) > > > While I'm far from being an authority on the matter, running > datanodes+regionservers together should help performance > Try making your 2 datanodes + 2 regionservers into 4 servers running > both data/region. > I will try to run datanode and region server on the same server. > > I runned the org.apache.hadoop.PerformanceEvaluation on the ZooKeeper > > server. the ROW_LENGTH was changed from 1000 to ROW_LENGTH = 100*1024; > > So each value will be 100k in size. > > > > hadoop version is 0.20.2, hbase version is 0.20.3. dfs.replication set to > 1. > > > Setting replication to 1 isn't going to give results that are very > indicative of a "real" application, making it questionable as a > benchmark. If you intend to run on a single replica at release, you'll > be at high risk of data loss. > Since I have only 2 data nodes, I set replication to 1. In production, it will be set to 3. > > The following is the command line: > > > > bin/hbase org.apache.hadoop.hbase.PerformanceEvaluation --nomapred > > --rows=10000 randomWrite 20. > > > > It tooks about one hour to complete the test(3468628 ms), about 60 writes > > per second. It seems the performance is disappointing. > > > > Is there anything I can do to make hbase perform better under 100k size > ？I > > didn't try the method mentioned in the performance wiki yet, because I > > thought 60writes/sec is too low. > > > > > Do you mean *over* 100k size? > 2GB ram is pretty low and you'd likely get significantly better > performance with it, though on this scale it probably isn't a > significant problem. > the data size is exactly 100k size. > > If the value size is 1k, hbase performs much better. 200000 sequencewrite > > tooks about 16 seconds, about 12500 writes/per second. > > > > > Comparing sequencewrite performance with randomwrite isn't a helpful > indicator. Do you have randomWrite results for 1k values? The way your > performance degrades with the size of the records seems like you may > have a bottleneck at network transfer? What's rack locality like and how > much bandwidth do you have between the servers? > > Now I am trying to benchmark using two clients on 2 servers, no result > yet. > > > > > for 1k datasize, the sequencewrite performance and randomWrite performance is about the same. All my servers are under one switch, don't know the switch bandwidth yet. > You're already running 20 clients on your first server with the > PerformanceEvaluation. Do you mean you intend to run 20 on each? > In fact, it is 20 threads on one machine. > > Hopefully someone with better knowledge can give a better answer but my > guess is that you have a network transfer transfer. Try doing further > tests with randomWrite and decreasing value sizes and see if the time > correlates to the total amount of data written. > >
