[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15619?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15236482#comment-15236482
]
Yu Li commented on HBASE-15619:
-------------------------------
Thanks for the double check [~stack]!
bq. I'm thinking that us being bad at reading non-existent values is a problem
but not a critical issue. What you think Yu Li?
Agreed, and make sense to knock it down from critical.
bq. Seems like 1.1 is about the same as 0.98 otherwise (I thought it was much
better).
Same feeling, it's a pity, but also means we still have the space to improve.
:-)
bq. flight recording might give better detail. I didn't do this. Let me know if
you want me to (you'd probably be better-off doing it yourself Yu Li if bad
performance reading an empty table is important for you).
Let me further dig into the empty reading case and get back here if any
findings, what you've done is already very helpful, thank you sir!
> Performance regression observed: Empty random read(get) performance of
> branch-1 worse than 0.98
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HBASE-15619
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15619
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: Bug
> Reporter: Yu Li
> Assignee: Yu Li
> Attachments: compare.png, flamegraph-108588.098.svg,
> flamegraph-1221.branch-1.svg, flamegraph-135684.1.1.svg
>
>
> As titled, I observed the perf regression in the final stress testing before
> upgrading our online cluster to 1.x. More details as follows:
> 1. HBase version in the comparison test:
> * 0.98: based on 0.98.12 with some backports, among which HBASE-11297 is
> the most important perf-related one (especially under high stress)
> * 1.x: checked 3 releases in total
> 1) 1.1.2 with important perf fixes/improvements including HBASE-15031
> and HBASE-14465
> 2) 1.1.4 release
> 3) 1.2.1RC1
> 2. Test environment
> * YCSB: 0.7.0 with
> [YCSB-651|https://github.com/brianfrankcooper/YCSB/pull/651] applied
> * Client: 4 physical nodes, each with 8 YCSB instance, each instance with
> 100 threads
> * Server: 1 Master with 3 RS, each RS with 256 handlers and 64G heap
> * Hardware: 64-core CPU, 256GB Mem, 10Gb Net, 1 PCIe-SSD and 11 HDD, same
> hardware for client and server
> 3. Test cases
> * -p fieldcount=1 -p fieldlength=128 -p readproportion=1
> * case #1: read against empty table
> * -case #2: lrucache 100% hit-
> * -case #3: BLOCKCACHE=>false-
> 4. Test result
> * 1.1.4 and 1.2.1 have a similar perf (less than 2% deviation) as 1.1.2+, so
> will only paste comparison data of 0.98.12+ and 1.1.2+
> * per-RS Throughput(ops/s)
> ||HBaseVersion||case#1||-case#2-||-case#3-||
> |0.98.12+|383562|-257493-|-47594-|
> |1.1.2+|363050|-232757-|-35872-|
> * AverageLatency(us)
> ||HBaseVersion||case#1||-case#2-||-case#3-||
> |0.98.12+|2774|-4134-|-22371-|
> |1.1.2+|2930|-4572-|-29690-|
> It seems there's perf regression on RPCServer (we tried 0.98 client against
> 1.x server and observed a similar perf to 1.x client)
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
