locate it. Do I need to create a new entry for it there?
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks,
> David
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Keith Turner [mailto:ke...@deenlo.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, September 19, 2013 7:01 PM
>
> *To:* user@accumulo.apache.org
> *Subject:* Re: BatchWriter performance on 1
r.getLogger("org.apache.accumulo.core.client.impl").setLevel(Level.TRACE)
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks,
> David
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Keith Turner [mailto:ke...@deenlo.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, September 19, 2013 7:01 PM
>
> *To:* user@accumulo.apache.org
an't locate it. Do I need
to create a new entry for it there?
Thanks,
David
From: Keith Turner [mailto:ke...@deenlo.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 7:01 PM
To: user@accumulo.apache.org
Subject: Re: BatchWriter performance on 1.4
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 5:08 PM, Slater, David M.
ge : initial= 0.22 final= 0.20
What do these numbers look like for you?
Keith
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Keith Turner [mailto:ke...@deenlo.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, September 19, 2013 12:39 PM
> *To:* user@accumulo.apache.org
>
> *Subject:* Re: BatchWriter performance
: Thursday, September 19, 2013 12:39 PM
To: user@accumulo.apache.org
Subject: Re: BatchWriter performance on 1.4
Are you aware of the multi table batch writer? I am not sure if it would be
useful, but wanted to make sure you knew about it. It will use the same
thread pool to process mutations fo
Are you aware of the multi table batch writer? I am not sure if it would
be useful, but wanted to make sure you knew about it. It will use the
same thread pool to process mutations for multiple tables. Also it will
batch mutations for multiple tablets into the same rpc calls.
On Wed, Sep 18,
, it would be
nice to have a different thread handle the ingest for each BatchWriter, so I
might try that out.
From: David Medinets [mailto:david.medin...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2013 10:41 PM
To: accumulo-user
Subject: Re: BatchWriter performance on 1.4
Have you looked at
The addMutations method blocks when the client-side buffer fills up, so you
may see a lot of time spent in that method due to a bottleneck downstream.
There are a number of things you could try to speed that up. Here are a few:
1. Increase the BatchWriter's buffer size. This can smooth out the netw
Have you looked at generating rfiles instead of writing mutations directly
to Accumulo?
Are the four target tables pre-split?
Are all tservers engaged in the ingest process?
Do you see a lot of compactions while the ingest is happening?
Any reason not to run four ingest processes with one batchwrit
Currently the addMutation() code is synchronized, so that is a bottle neck.
A thread would get around this, but then there's then you need to manage
the thread properly.
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 5:07 PM, Slater, David M.
wrote:
> Hi, I’m running a single-threaded ingestion program that takes data
10 matches
Mail list logo
