Hi Lars, Can you share the code you are using so I can compate with PE? Also, I will re-run all for my scanRange100 tests today and update the spreadsheet again to make sure it's correct. Also also re-download all the HBase versions to make sure they are all clean. I'm not doing any configuration with them. Simply reducing the logs and tmp pointing to memory file system.
I will keep you posted when it's done. Hi Jonathan, It's usually rows per seconds, but with a factor 10. Sometime I had to divide by 100000, sometime to multiply to get numbers bigger... I will take a look at th formulas and add the legend for each of the charts. JM 2013/3/19 Jonathan Hsieh <[email protected]>: > What is the y axis's unit? seconds or operations per second etc? (nit: > would be nice to have on the axis.. ) > > Based on the context, I believe it is ops/s. > > Jon. > > On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 7:03 PM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> 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) >> >> >> > > > > -- > // Jonathan Hsieh (shay) > // Software Engineer, Cloudera > // [email protected]
