You ain't gotta like me, you just mad Cause I tell it how it is, and you tell it how it might be
-Attributed to Puff Daddy & Now apparently T. Lipcon On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 2:33 PM, Todd Lipcon <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hey Doug, > > Want to also run a comparison test with inter-cluster replication > turned on? How about kerberos-based security on secure HDFS? How about > ACLs or other table permissions even without strong authentication? > Can you run a test comparing performance running on top of Hadoop > 0.23? How about running other ecosystem products like Solbase, > Havrobase, and Lily, or commercial products like Digital Reasoning's > Synthesys, etc? > > For those unfamiliar, the answer to all of the above is that those > comparisons can't be run because Hypertable is years behind HBase in > terms of features, adoption, etc. They've found a set of benchmarks > they win at, but bulk loading either database through the "put" API is > the wrong way to go about it anyway. Anyone loading 5T of data like > this would use the bulk load APIs which are one to two orders of > magnitude more efficient. Just ask the Yahoo crawl cache team, who has > ~1PB stored in HBase, or Facebook, or eBay, or many others who store > hundreds to thousands of TBs in HBase today. > > Thanks, > -Todd > > On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 9:07 AM, Doug Judd <[email protected]> wrote: > > In our original test, we mistakenly ran the HBase test with > > the hbase.hregion.memstore.mslab.enabled property set to false. We re-ran > > the test with the hbase.hregion.memstore.mslab.enabled property set to true > > and have reported the results in the following addendum: > > > > Addendum to Hypertable vs. HBase Performance > > Test<http://www.hypertable.com/why_hypertable/hypertable_vs_hbase_2/addendum/> > > > > Synopsis: It slowed performance on the 10KB and 1KB tests and still failed > > the 100 byte and 10 byte tests with *Concurrent mode failure* > > > > - Doug > > > > -- > Todd Lipcon > Software Engineer, Cloudera
