My reading of the paper is that they are actually not clear about whether or not HMasters were deployed on datanodes.
I'm going to guess that they just used default configurations for HBase and YCSB, but the paper again is not specific enough. Why were they using 0.90.4 in 2012? Would have been nice to see some of the more recent work done in the area of performance. One thing the paper does touch on is the relative difficulty of standing up the cluster, which has not changed since 0.90.4. I think that's definitely something that could be improved upon. - Dave On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 6:27 AM, Cristofer Weber < cristofer.we...@neogrid.com> wrote: > Just read this article, "Solving Big Data Challenges for Enterprise > Application Performance Management." published this month @ Volume 5, No.12 > of Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment, where they measured 6 different > databases - Project Voldemort, Redis, HBase, Cassandra, MySQL Cluster and > VoltDB - with YCSB on two different kind of clusters, Memory-bound and > Disk-bound, and I'm in doubt about results for HBase since: > > > * HBase version was 0.90.4 > > * Master nodes were deployed together with data nodes > > * They didn't reported tuning parameters > > There's also a paragraph where they reported that HBase failed frequently > in non-deterministic ways while running YCSB. > > My intention with this e-mail is to look for opinions from you, who are > more experienced with HBase, on where this experiment's setup could be > changed to improve read operations, since in this setup HBase did not > performed as well as Cassandra and Project Voldemort. > > Here's the article: > http://vldb.org/pvldb/vol5/p1724_tilmannrabl_vldb2012.pdf and Volume 5 > home: http://vldb.org/pvldb/vol5.html > > > >
