Just to clarify the numbers, it's transactions per seconds. Like for RandomScanWithRange100Test it's the number for 100 lines scans done per seconds. So the bigger, the better.
The last 4 are just the time spent to perform the test. JM 2014-07-03 10:10 GMT-04:00 Jean-Marc Spaggiari <[email protected]>: > Oh, sorry. There was some formating, seems it got lost... > > Here is the Google document: http://goo.gl/1uHs98 > > Let me know if it's better. > > JM > > > 2014-07-03 9:55 GMT-04:00 Ted Yu <[email protected]>: > > Jean-Marc: >> Thanks for posting results. >> >> It is not easy to read. >> Can you reformat the results ? >> >> On Jul 3, 2014, at 6:10 AM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> > Here are the perfs tests results. Someone on the user list asked few >> days >> > ago about perfs between 0.94 and 0.98. So I have put also 0.98 on my >> > results here. Basically, as I said yesterday, no negativ perf impact for >> > 0.94.21. Each test run 10 times (except the last 4) and I remove the 2 >> > extremes. >> > >> > JM >> > >> > >> > 0.94.200.94.21 0.98.2FilteredScanTest 0,230,22 0,25RandomReadTest 808815 >> > 1 107RandomSeekScanTest 172169 201RandomScanWithRange10Test 286279 277 >> > RandomScanWithRange100Test 147145 161RandomScanWithRange1000Test 38,22 >> 37,27 >> > 50 SequentialReadTest1 217 1 1991 392 SequentialWriteTest13 732 13 >> 39119 455 >> > RandomWriteTest14 091 13 64219 708 GaussianRandomReadBenchmark9 404 9 >> 435 >> > 10 777 SequentialReadBenchmark2 938 638 3 074 8153 335 239 >> > SequentialWriteBenchmark912 469 913 573833 654 >> UniformRandomReadBenchmark >> > 10 299 10 35811 762 UniformRandomSmallScan233 583 234 083277 850 >> > LoadTestToolreal 19m30.113s >> > user 37m12.300s >> > sys 11m19.224s real 19m26.099s >> > user 36m1.740s >> > sys 11m41.704sreal 14m40.709s >> > user 28m56.892s >> > sys 12m6.364sIntegrationTestLoadAnVerify real 4m11.269s >> > user 1m32.904s >> > sys 0m7.176s real 4m7.288s >> > user 1m31.704s >> > sys 0m6.780sreal 2m38.295s >> > user 1m24.500s >> > sys 0m6.036sHLogPerformanceEvaluation 10431,988 10629,025n/a >> > IntegrationTestBigLinkedListreal 6m0.125s >> > user 3m0.004s >> > sys 0m11.312s real 6m17.616s >> > user 2m58.684s >> > sys 0m10.492S real 9m9.284s >> > user 3m31.576s >> > sys 0m19.828s >> > >> > >> > 2014-07-02 21:22 GMT-04:00 Jean-Marc Spaggiari <[email protected] >> >: >> > >> >> So far performances are similar to 0.94.21. So green from my side too. >> I >> >> will post detailed results later tonight or tomorrow morning. >> >> >> >> JM >> >> >> >> >> >> 2014-07-02 18:29 GMT-04:00 lars hofhansl <[email protected]>: >> >> >> >> Thanks Ted & Andy. >> >>> With my +1 we have the required 3 binding votes, will release 0.94.21 >> >>> tomorrow. >> >>> >> >>> -- Lars >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> ________________________________ >> >>> From: Ted Yu <[email protected]> >> >>> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >> >>> Sent: Wednesday, July 2, 2014 1:25 PM >> >>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] The 1st hbase 0.94.21 release candidate is >> available >> >>> for download >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> +1 >> >>> >> >>> Checked md5 sum >> >>> Checked signature >> >>> Apache RAT check passes. >> >>> Unit test suite passed (using jdk 1.7.0_25) >> >>> >> >>> Cheers >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> >> >>> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> +1 >> >>>> >> >>>> MD5 sum is good >> >>>> Signature is good >> >>>> Unpacked tarball, structure looks good. >> >>>> Ran Apache RAT, check passed**. >> >>>> Local compile and build was successful (with 7u60) >> >>>> Unit test suite passes 10 times out of 10 >> >>>> Ran LoadTestTool, no errors, logs look good. >> >>>> >> >>>> ** - You have to remove docs/ and generated web.xml files under >> >>>> hbase-webapps/ first. Going forward I think we should release a >> source >> >>> only >> >>>> tarball and a second -bin "binary convenience" artifact. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 2:20 PM, lars hofhansl <[email protected]> >> >>> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>>> The 1st 0.94.21 RC is available for download at >> >>>>> http://people.apache.org/~larsh/hbase-0.94.21-rc0/ >> >>>>> Signed with my code signing key: C7CFE328 >> >>>>> >> >>>>> 0.94 development is continuing to wind down, HBase 0.94.21 is a >> small >> >>> bug >> >>>>> fix release with 9 fixes: >> >>>>> [HBASE-10692] - The Multi TableMap job don't support the security >> >>>>> HBase cluster >> >>>>> [HBASE-11052] - Sending random data crashes thrift service >> >>>>> [HBASE-11096] - stop method of Master and RegionServer >> >>> coprocessor is >> >>>>> not invoked >> >>>>> [HBASE-11234] - FastDiffDeltaEncoder#getFirstKeyInBlock returns >> >>> wrong >> >>>>> result >> >>>>> [HBASE-11341] - ZKProcedureCoordinatorRpcs should respond only to >> >>>>> members >> >>>>> [HBASE-11414] - Backport to 0.94: HBASE-7711 rowlock release >> >>> problem >> >>>>> with thread interruptions in batchMutate >> >>>>> [HBASE-8495] - Change ownership of the directory to bulk load >> >>>>> [HBASE-10871] - Indefinite OPEN/CLOSE wait on busy RegionServers >> >>>>> [HBASE-10935] - support snapshot policy where flush memstore can >> >>> be >> >>>>> skipped to prevent production cluster freeze >> >>>>> >> >>>>> The list of changes is also available here: >> >>> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12310753&version=12326794 >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Here's the test run for this RC: >> >>>>> https://builds.apache.org/job/HBase-0.94.21/30/ >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Please try out the RC, check out the doc, take it for a spin, etc, >> and >> >>>>> vote +1/-1 by EOD July 3rd on whether we should release this as >> >>> 0.94.21. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Thanks. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> -- Lars >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> -- >> >>>> Best regards, >> >>>> >> >>>> - Andy >> >>>> >> >>>> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet >> Hein >> >>>> (via Tom White) >> >> >> >> >> > >
