On 3/5/2012 11:39 AM, D S wrote:
On 3/5/12, Michael Drzal<mdr...@gmail.com> wrote:
Y
Is HBase's configuration options robust enough that it could go back
and run well on those 2003 specs by a bit of tweaking if that what was
desired?
What do you mean "run well"? Run as well as Big Table would have done on
the same machines? (Probably only someone who worked on B/T would be in
a position to comment on that). Run without crashing? Run at XXX I/O
operations per second?
Since 2003, roughly speaking at the same price point for a "commodity":
network I/O has increased by a factor of 10 - 100Mps was typical in such
a m/c, now 1G is typical and 10G available.
disk I/O has increased by about 5 to 10 (3G SATA vs ATA-100, faster
rotation and seek times)
disk price per GB has dropped by about a factor of 10
RAM performance has increased by a factor of somewhere between 5 and 10
CPU performance has increased for a typical "commodity" m/c from say
1GHz single core to 2.5 to 3 G Quad or 8 core, so say 20-30x overall.
Add to that a lot of people on this list use virtualized instances and
the equations get even more complicated and confusing.
Whats you point? Do you want to know how to set up a minimal HBase node
which works on a 512M m/c? Purely for testing purposes I've run a V/M
with only 750MB of RAM and it worked, but I wasn't pushing very much
data through it.
Alan
