Cool. The 0.94.3 scanning improvements seems almost unbelievable (especially since many of my improvements to reduce the internal friction went into 0.94.4). I would like to track down the random read regression.
Can you send the commands you ran? Are you running this as M/R job or standalone client? Thanks for doing this J-M. -- Lars ________________________________ From: Jean-Marc Spaggiari <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2013 7:03 PM Subject: Re: Performances Tests Hi Enis, "interesting" in the positive way ;) Results are there: http://www.spaggiari.org/media/blogs/hbase/pictures/performances-1.pdf?mtime=1363484477 The improvment on scan are impressive. sequentialRead and randomScan went down. In ran the 0.94.6 tests with RC2. If we have a RC3 I will rerun them. I will add HFilePerformanceEvaluation soon but I'm facinf some issues with it on previous HBase version... JM 2013/3/12 Enis Söztutar <[email protected]>: >> 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) >>
