The google doc is so much easier to read. Nit: 39,40 would be written as 39.4 in US, right ?
Thanks On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 7:43 AM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari <[email protected] > wrote: > 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) > >> >> > >> >> > >> > > > > >
