Hi Ted, I will try to build the trunk version and add it in the list....
So I have to: - Re-download all HBase version to make sure PE is using the right one; - Re-run the scanRange100 tests to validate the values already found; - Add the trunk; - Add LoadTestTool Than will keep my free time buzy ;) I keep you all posted as soon as it's done. JM 2013/3/20 Ted Yu <[email protected]>: > I am curious to know how trunk stands in the performance comparison. > There have been many optimizations going into trunk. Getting hold of > overall improvement would be nice. > > Cheers > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 5:02 AM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> 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] >>
