Thanks J-M, so that should be easy to reproduce. I'll try. -- Lars
________________________________ From: Jean-Marc Spaggiari <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 9:47 AM Subject: Re: Performances Tests @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]>: > 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:;>> >> To: [email protected] <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. 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 s > > > > -- > Best regards, > > - Andy > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein > (via Tom White)
