Repeating my earlier question: 20*Meg* queries per second?? Just checked and *google* does 40*K* queries per second. Now maybe the "queries" are a decomposition of far fewer end-user queries that cause a fanout of backend queries. *But still .. *
So maybe please check your numbers again. 2016-11-19 17:05 GMT-08:00 Heng Chen <heng.chen.1...@gmail.com>: > The performance looks great! > > 2016-11-19 18:03 GMT+08:00 Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com>: > > Opening a JIRA would be fine. > > This makes it easier for people to obtain the patch(es). > > > > Cheers > > > >> On Nov 18, 2016, at 11:35 PM, Anoop John <anoop.hb...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> Because of some compatibility issues, we decide that this will be done > >> in 2.0 only.. Ya as Andy said, it would be great to share the 1.x > >> backported patches. Is it a mega patch at ur end? Or issue by issue > >> patches? Latter would be best. Pls share patches in some place and a > >> list of issues backported. I can help with verifying the issues once > >> so as to make sure we dont miss any... > >> > >> -Anoop- > >> > >>> On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 12:32 AM, Enis Söztutar <enis....@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>> Thanks for sharing this. Great work. > >>> > >>> I don't see any reason why we cannot backport to branch-1. > >>> > >>> Enis > >>> > >>> On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 9:37 AM, Andrew Purtell < > andrew.purt...@gmail.com> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Yes, please, the patches will be useful to the community even if we > decide > >>>> not to backport into an official 1.x release. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>> On Nov 18, 2016, at 12:25 PM, Bryan Beaudreault < > >>>>> bbeaudrea...@hubspot.com> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Is the backported patch available anywhere? Not seeing it on the > >>>> referenced > >>>>> JIRA. If it ends up not getting officially backported to branch-1 > due to > >>>>> 2.0 around the corner, some of us who build our own deploy may want > to > >>>>> integrate into our builds. Thanks! These numbers look great > >>>>> > >>>>>> On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 12:20 PM Anoop John <anoop.hb...@gmail.com> > >>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Hi Yu Li > >>>>>> Good to see that the off heap work help you.. The perf > >>>>>> numbers looks great. So this is a compare of on heap L1 cache vs > off > >>>> heap > >>>>>> L2 cache(HBASE-11425 enabled). So for 2.0 we should make L2 off > heap > >>>>>> cache ON by default I believe. Will raise a jira for that we can > >>>> discuss > >>>>>> under that. Seems like L2 off heap cache for data blocks and L1 > cache > >>>> for > >>>>>> index blocks seems a right choice. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thanks for the backport and the help in testing the feature.. You > were > >>>>>> able to find some corner case bugs and helped community to fix > them.. > >>>>>> Thanks goes to ur whole team. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -Anoop- > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 10:14 PM, Yu Li <car...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Sorry guys, let me retry the inline images: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Performance w/o offheap: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Performance w/ offheap: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Peak Get QPS of one single RS during Singles' Day (11/11): > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> And attach the files in case inline still not working: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Performance_without_offheap.png > >>>>>>> < > >>>>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B017Q40_ > F5uwbWEzUGktYVIya3JkcXVjRkFvVG > >>>> NtM0VxWC1n/view?usp=drive_web > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Performance_with_offheap.png > >>>>>>> < > >>>>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B017Q40_ > F5uweGR2cnJEU0M1MWwtRFJ5YkxUeF > >>>> VrcUdPc2ww/view?usp=drive_web > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Peak_Get_QPS_of_Single_RS.png > >>>>>>> < > >>>>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B017Q40_ > F5uwQ2FkR2k0ZmEtRVNGSFp5RUxHM3 > >>>> F6bHpNYnJz/view?usp=drive_web > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Best Regards, > >>>>>>> Yu > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On 18 November 2016 at 19:29, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Yu: > >>>>>>>> With positive results, more hbase users would be asking for the > >>>> backport > >>>>>>>> of offheap read path patches. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Do you think you or your coworker has the bandwidth to publish > >>>> backport > >>>>>>>> for branch-1 ? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Thanks > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Nov 18, 2016, at 12:11 AM, Yu Li <car...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Dear all, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> We have backported read path offheap (HBASE-11425) to our > customized > >>>>>>>> hbase-1.1.2 (thanks @Anoop for the help/support) and run it > online for > >>>>>> more > >>>>>>>> than a month, and would like to share our experience, for what > it's > >>>>>> worth > >>>>>>>> (smile). > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Generally speaking, we gained a better and more stable > >>>>>>>> throughput/performance with offheap, and below are some details: > >>>>>>>>> 1. QPS become more stable with offheap > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Performance w/o offheap: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Performance w/ offheap: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> These data come from our online A/B test cluster (with 450 > physical > >>>>>>>> machines, and each with 256G memory + 64 core) with real world > >>>>>> workloads, > >>>>>>>> it shows using offheap we could gain a more stable throughput as > well > >>>> as > >>>>>>>> better performance > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Not showing fully online data here because for online we > published > >>>> the > >>>>>>>> version with both offheap and NettyRpcServer together, so no > >>>> standalone > >>>>>>>> comparison data for offheap > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> 2. Full GC frequency and cost > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Average Full GC STW time reduce from 11s to 7s with offheap. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> 3. Young GC frequency and cost > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> No performance degradation observed with offheap. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> 4. Peak throughput of one single RS > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Singles Day (11/11), peak throughput of one single RS reached > >>>> 100K, > >>>>>>>> among which 90K from Get. Plus internet in/out data we could know > the > >>>>>>>> average result size of get request is ~1KB > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Offheap are used on all online machines (more than 1600 nodes) > >>>> instead > >>>>>>>> of LruCache, so the above QPS is gained from offheap bucketcache, > >>>> along > >>>>>>>> with NettyRpcServer(HBASE-15756). > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Just let us know if any comments. Thanks. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Best Regards, > >>>>>>>>> Yu > >>>> >
