Just want to clarify I mean experimenting with the approach of the Thrift client work not use of Thrift particularly.
On Thursday, August 30, 2012, Andrew Purtell wrote: > This paper could very well have benchmarked the relative performance of > the YCSB drivers. Some take aways for me here are: > > - Cluster setup is too difficult still > > - There are opportunities for autotuning that would make it easier for > users to get it right the first time and for academics and casual > benchmarkers alike to get a good result without becoming experts with HBase > configuration > > - The client library has been evolving toward fully async dispatch, we > should focus on this, perhaps even consider reimplementing sync client on a > refactored async core. And look at making the Thrift based stuff FB put in > front and center, because then native clients are possible. > > - Given the above client work, the YCSB HBase driver should have a > rewrite. > > On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 4:49 PM, Dave Wang > <d...@cloudera.com<javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'd...@cloudera.com');> > > wrote: > >> 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 <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', >> '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 >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > -- > Best regards, > > - Andy > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein > (via Tom White) > > -- Best regards, - Andy Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein (via Tom White)