For a tiny test like this, everything should be in memory and latency should be very low.
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 5:39 PM, Dmitriy Lyubimov <dlie...@gmail.com> wrote: > PS so what should latency be for reads in 0.90, assuming moderate thruput? > > On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 5:39 PM, Dmitriy Lyubimov <dlie...@gmail.com> wrote: >> for this test, there's just no more than 40 rows in every given table. >> This is just a laugh check. >> >> so i think it's safe to assume it all goes to same region server. >> >> But latency would not depend on which server call is going to, would >> it? Only throughput would, assuming we are not overloading. >> >> And we clearly are not as my single-node local version runs quite ok >> response times with the same throughput. >> >> It's something with either client connections or network latency or >> ... i don't know what it is. I did not set up the cluster but i gotta >> troubleshoot it now :) >> >> >> >> On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 5:23 PM, Ted Dunning <tdunn...@maprtech.com> wrote: >>> How many regions? How are they distributed? >>> >>> Typically it is good to fill the table some what and then drive some >>> splits and balance operations via the shell. One more split to make >>> the regions be local and you should be good to go. Make sure you have >>> enough keys in the table to support these splits, of course. >>> >>> Under load, you can look at the hbase home page to see how >>> transactions are spread around your cluster. Without splits and local >>> region files, you aren't going to see what you want in terms of >>> performance. >>> >> >
