Anything at all would be great JM. Looking forward to it if you have the
time and interest. Thanks!
On Sunday, March 17, 2013, Jean-Marc Spaggiari wrote:
> @Lars: here is an example of what I use
> for i in {1..10}; do echo; echo -n $i ; rm -rf /tmp/*;
> bin/start-hbase.sh; sleep 60; bin/hbase
> org.apache.hadoop.hbase.PerformanceEvaluation sequentialWrite 1;
> bin/hbase org.apache.hadoop.hbase.PerformanceEvaluation --rows=100
> filterScan 1; bin/stop-hbase.sh; done &>> output.txt
>
> Giving only 1 as the readers allow to not launch the test as a MR. I
> have not try the same tests with a bigger number, but I can.
>
> @Andy: LoadTestTool is also on my list, but for YCSB it's a but harder
> since I will need more than one dedicated computer. But I will look at
> it too. I might be able to remove 1 node from my cluster and dedicate
> it to the tests when required...
>
>
> I will be pretty buzy next week, but before next week-end I will try
> to prepare the LoadTestTool scripts to run something similar. With
> multiple scenarios, like with and whithout bloom, etc.
>
> If yu have any recommandation/request, feel free! I will come back
> soon with some additionnal numbers.
>
> JM
>
> 2013/3/17 Andrew Purtell <[email protected] <javascript:;>>:
> > I'm not sure I trust the results of PerformanceEvauation.
> >
> > LoadTestTool and YCSB have their own issues but seem to produce more
> > consistent results. I've been thinking on adding scanning and filtering
> > tests to LoadTestTool.
> >
> > On Sunday, March 17, 2013, lars hofhansl wrote:
> >
> >> 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]
> >> <javascript:;><javascript:;>>
> >> To: [email protected] <javascript:;> <javascript:;>
> >> 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.
--
Best regards,
- Andy
Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
(via Tom White)
