> I just finished to run all the PerformanceEvaluation tests on a dedicated computer with all 0.9x.x HBase versions, and I found results interesting. Can you please provide your numbers if you can. What is interesting from your findings?
Enis On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 5:41 PM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari < [email protected]> wrote: > If you run only 1 client with PerformanceEvaluation, it's not running > it over MapReduce, so you don't have this overhead. But you can still > run it if you want to have something more distributed. Might be useful > to have the 2 options. But at the end, LoadTestTool or > PerformanceEvaluation, any of the 2 is good as long as we are adding > those tests. > > I just finished to run all the PerformanceEvaluation tests on a > dedicated computer with all 0.9x.x HBase versions, and I found results > interesting. That gives us a good baseline to see if new HBase > improvements are really improving performances. > > JM > > 2013/3/8 Andrew Purtell <[email protected]>: > > Tangentally: I think I prefer LoadTestTool over PerformanceEvaluation, it > > doesn't depend on nor is influenced by MapReduce job startup. > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 10:05 PM, ramkrishna vasudevan < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > >> @JM > >> I agree with you. Mainly the perf improvement changes needs some > >> testcases. > >> But sometimes the scenario on which the perf improvments happens are bit > >> difficult to generate and we will be able to do in a standalone case > only. > >> May be overall if we need to get that perf improvment result we need a > >> real cluster with suitable data. That is what i have experienced. Just > >> telling. > >> > >> Regards > >> Ram > >> > >> On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 7:28 PM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari < > >> [email protected] > >> > wrote: > >> > >> > Hi, > >> > > >> > In HBase we already have PerformanceEvaluation which gives us a good > >> > way to validate that nothing broke HBase speed in the recent updates. > >> > > >> > I can see in the JIRAs many improvements coming, like for the lazy > >> > seeks, the bloom filters, etc. however, there is no tests for those > >> > improvements. > >> > > >> > Will it not be good to ask people to add some new tests in > >> > PerformanceEvaluation when they are introducing an improvement which > >> > is not covered there? > >> > > >> > We should not touch existing tests because we need to have a way to > >> > compare the baseline between the different versions, but we can still > >> > add some new. Like in addition to RandomSeekScanTest we can add > >> > RandomSeekScanBloomEnabledTest and so on. And even better if we can > >> > back port those new tests to previous version. > >> > > >> > The same way we add a test class when we introduce a new feature, > >> > should we add a performance test method to test it too? > >> > > >> > JM > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Best regards, > > > > - Andy > > > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein > > (via Tom White) >
