Hi Bruno Regarding the perf issue with more CPs you might be interested in seeing this https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-25277
Regards Ram On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 11:25 PM ramkrishna vasudevan < ramkrishna.s.vasude...@gmail.com> wrote: > This is great information. Thanks Bruno. Keep us posted if you find > anything more when you have your isolated tests done. > > Regards > Ram > > On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 10:36 PM Bruno Dumon <bru...@ngdata.com> wrote: > >> Hi Ram, >> >> Sorry I missed your question. Yes, we do use addColumns. >> >> Specifically, we also query the Phoenix existence marker, which is a >> column >> named "_0", which is typically the last column in the row (we query this >> through custom scans, not through Phoenix). It does seem that reading the >> last column in the row does have an extra impact compared to HBase 1.2. >> >> I have been trying to further pin down our performance issues in an >> isolated test but I have not yet arrived at anything conclusive. I'll try >> to look into it further next week. >> >> I did also notice that HBase 2.x spends some more time iterating over the >> coprocessors, and we quite a few of those (19, some of those are from >> Phoenix, then some endpoint coprocessors and quite some region observers). >> We don't do anything in the pre/postScannerNext but still it consumes >> quite >> some time during scanning. Replacing all the region observer coprocessors >> by a single one does have a nice effect, 15-20% improvement, though I >> still >> need to test with a wider variety of queries. >> >> >> On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 2:46 PM ramkrishna vasudevan < >> ramkrishna.s.vasude...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > Hi Bruno/Jan >> > >> > Just a query here. I read your emails in this thread. One simple >> question >> > just to ensure if your tests were similar to Andrew's test. Did your >> scan >> > query have addColumns explicitly added covering all (or most of) the >> > columns in the rows? >> > >> > Regards >> > Ram >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 7:02 AM Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> >> > wrote: >> > >> > > This is a good finding, nice work! >> > > I added a comment on HBASE-24742 that mentions HBASE-24637 on the off >> > > chance they are related, although I suspect more changes are >> implicated >> > by >> > > the 2.x regression. >> > > >> > > On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 5:53 PM Bharath Vissapragada < >> > bhara...@apache.org> >> > > wrote: >> > > >> > > > FYI, we filed this today >> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-24742 >> > > > . >> > > > We ran into a similar regression when upgrading from 1.3 based >> branch >> > to >> > > > 1.6 based branch. After some profiling and code analysis we narrowed >> > down >> > > > the code paths. >> > > > >> > > > On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 11:38 AM Josh Elser <els...@apache.org> >> wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > Wow. Great stuff, Andrew! >> > > > > >> > > > > Thank you for compiling and posting it all here. I can only >> imagine >> > how >> > > > > time-consuming this was. >> > > > > >> > > > > On 6/26/20 1:57 PM, Andrew Purtell wrote: >> > > > > > Hey Anoop, I opened >> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-24637 >> > > > > and >> > > > > > attached the patches and script used to make the comparison. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 2:33 AM Anoop John < >> anoop.hb...@gmail.com> >> > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> Great investigation Andy. Do you know any Jiras which made >> > changes >> > > in >> > > > > SQM? >> > > > > >> Would be great if you can attach your patch which tracks the >> scan >> > > > > flow. If >> > > > > >> we have a Jira for this issue, can you pls attach? >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> Anoop >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 1:56 AM Andrew Purtell < >> > > > > andrew.purt...@gmail.com> >> > > > > >> wrote: >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >>> Related, I think I found a bug in branch-1 where we don’t >> > heartbeat >> > > > in >> > > > > >> the >> > > > > >>> filter all case until we switch store files, so scanning a >> very >> > > large >> > > > > >> store >> > > > > >>> file might time out with client defaults. Remarking on this >> here >> > > so I >> > > > > >> don’t >> > > > > >>> forget to follow up. >> > > > > >>> >> > > > > >>>> On Jun 25, 2020, at 12:27 PM, Andrew Purtell < >> > apurt...@apache.org >> > > > >> > > > > >>> wrote: >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> I repeated this test with pe --filterAll and the results were >> > > > > >> revealing, >> > > > > >>> at least for this case. I also patched in thread local hash >> map >> > for >> > > > > >> atomic >> > > > > >>> counters that I could update from code paths in SQM, >> > StoreScanner, >> > > > > >>> HFileReader*, and HFileBlock. Because a RPC is processed by a >> > > single >> > > > > >>> handler thread I could update counters and accumulate >> > micro-timings >> > > > via >> > > > > >>> System#nanoTime() per RPC and dump them out of CallRunner in >> some >> > > new >> > > > > >> trace >> > > > > >>> logging. I spent a couple of days making sure the >> instrumentation >> > > was >> > > > > >>> placed equivalently in both 1.6 and 2.2 code bases and was >> > > producing >> > > > > >>> consistent results. I can provide these patches upon request. >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> Again, test tables with one family and 1, 5, 10, 20, 50, and >> 100 >> > > > > >>> distinct column-qualifiers per row. After loading the table I >> > made >> > > a >> > > > > >>> snapshot and cloned the snapshot for testing, for both 1.6 and >> > 2.2, >> > > > so >> > > > > >> both >> > > > > >>> versions were tested using the exact same data files on HDFS. >> I >> > > also >> > > > > used >> > > > > >>> the 1.6 version of PE for both, so the only change is on the >> > server >> > > > > (1.6 >> > > > > >> vs >> > > > > >>> 2.2 masters and regionservers). >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> It appears a refactor to ScanQueryMatcher and friends has >> > disabled >> > > > the >> > > > > >>> ability of filters to provide SKIP hints, which prevents us >> from >> > > > > >> bypassing >> > > > > >>> version checking (so some extra cost in SQM), and appears to >> > > disable >> > > > an >> > > > > >>> optimization that avoids reseeking, leading to a serious and >> > > > > proportional >> > > > > >>> regression in reseek activity and time spent in that code >> path. >> > So >> > > > for >> > > > > >>> queries that use filters, there can be a substantial >> regression. >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> Other test cases that did not use filters did not show a >> > > regression. >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> A test case where I used ROW_INDEX_V1 encoding showed an >> > expected >> > > > > >> modest >> > > > > >>> proportional regression in seeking time, due to the fact it is >> > > > > optimized >> > > > > >>> for point queries and not optimized for the full table scan >> case. >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> I will come back here when I understand this better. >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> Here are the results for the pe --filterAll case: >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> 1.6.0 c1 2.2.5 c1 >> > > > > >>>> 1.6.0 c5 2.2.5 c5 >> > > > > >>>> 1.6.0 c10 2.2.5 c10 >> > > > > >>>> 1.6.0 c20 2.2.5 c20 >> > > > > >>>> 1.6.0 c50 2.2.5 c50 >> > > > > >>>> 1.6.0 c100 2.2.5 c100 >> > > > > >>>> Counts >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> (better heartbeating) >> > > > > >>>> (better heartbeating) >> > > > > >>>> (better heartbeating) >> > > > > >>>> (better heartbeating) >> > > > > >>>> (better heartbeating) >> > > > > >>>> rpcs 1 2 200% 2 6 300% 2 >> 10 >> > > > > >>> 500% 3 17 567% 4 37 925% 8 >> > 72 >> > > > > >> 900% >> > > > > >>>> block_reads 11507 11508 100% 57255 57257 100% >> > > 114471 >> > > > > >>> 114474 100% 230372 230377 100% 578292 578298 100% >> > > > 1157955 >> > > > > >>> 1157963 100% >> > > > > >>>> block_unpacks 11507 11508 100% 57255 57257 100% >> > > 114471 >> > > > > >>> 114474 100% 230372 230377 100% 578292 578298 100% >> > > > 1157955 >> > > > > >>> 1157963 100% >> > > > > >>>> seeker_next 10000000 10000000 100% >> 50000000 >> > > > > >>> 50000000 100% 100000000 100000000 100% >> > > > > 200000000 >> > > > > >>> 200000000 100% 500000000 500000000 >> > 100% >> > > > > >>> 1000000000 1000000000 100% >> > > > > >>>> store_next 10000000 9988268 100% 50000000 >> > > > 49940082 >> > > > > >>> 100% 100000000 99879401 100% >> 200000000 >> > > > > >>> 199766539 100% 500000000 499414653 100% >> > > > > >>> 1000000000 998836518 100% >> > > > > >>>> store_reseek 1 11733 > ! 2 59924 > ! >> 8 >> > > > > >>> 120607 > ! 6 233467 > ! 10 585357 > ! >> > 8 >> > > > > >>> 1163490 > ! >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> cells_matched 20000000 20000000 100% >> 60000000 >> > > > > >>> 60000000 100% 110000000 110000000 100% >> > > > > 210000000 >> > > > > >>> 210000000 100% 510000000 510000000 >> > 100% >> > > > > >>> 1010000000 1010000000 100% >> > > > > >>>> column_hint_include 10000000 10000000 100% >> > > > 50000000 >> > > > > >>> 50000000 100% 100000000 100000000 >> > 100% >> > > > > >>> 200000000 200000000 100% 500000000 >> 500000000 >> > > > > >>> 100% 1000000000 1000000000 100% >> > > > > >>>> filter_hint_skip 10000000 10000000 100% >> > > > 50000000 >> > > > > >>> 50000000 100% 100000000 100000000 >> > 100% >> > > > > >>> 200000000 200000000 100% 500000000 >> 500000000 >> > > > > >>> 100% 1000000000 1000000000 100% >> > > > > >>>> sqm_hint_done 9999999 9999999 100% 9999998 9999998 100% >> > > > 9999998 >> > > > > >>> 9999998 100% 9999997 9999997 100% 9999996 9999996 100% >> > > > 9999992 >> > > > > >>> 9999992 100% >> > > > > >>>> sqm_hint_seek_next_col 1 0 0% 2 >> > > > 40000002 >> > > > > >>> > ! 2 90000002 > ! 3 >> 190000003 >> > > > > > ! >> > > > > >>> 4 490000004 > ! 8 990000008 > >> ! >> > > > > >>>> sqm_hint_seek_next_row 0 10000000 > ! >> 2 >> > > > > >>> 10000000 > ! 0 10000000 > ! 0 >> > > > > 10000000 >> > > > > >>> > ! 0 10000000 > ! 0 >> 10000000 >> > > > > > ! >> > > > > >>>> sqm_hint_skip 10000000 0 0% 50000000 >> 0 >> > > > > >>> 0% 100000000 0 0% 200000000 0 >> > > 0% >> > > > > >>> 500000000 0 0% 1000000000 0 0% >> > > > > >>>> versions_hint_include_and_seek_next_col 0 0 >> 0% >> > > > > 0 >> > > > > >>> 40000000 > ! 0 90000000 > ! >> 0 >> > > > > >>> 190000000 > ! 0 490000000 > ! 0 >> > > > > >> 990000000 >> > > > > >>> > ! >> > > > > >>>> versions_hint_include_and_seek_next_row 0 0 >> 0% >> > > > > 0 >> > > > > >>> 10000000 > ! 0 10000000 > ! >> 0 >> > > > > >>> 10000000 > ! 0 10000000 > ! 0 >> > > > > 10000000 >> > > > > >>> > ! >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> Times >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> block_read_ms 174.12 215.96 124% 683.78 883.02 129% >> > > > 1724.66 >> > > > > >>> 1937.87 112% 3199.93 3470.92 108% 7582.96 7941.45 105% >> > > > > 14701.52 >> > > > > >>> 16022.57 109% >> > > > > >>>> block_unpack_ms 0.63 0.62 99% 2.35 2.35 >> > 100% >> > > > > >>> 4.36 4.56 105% 9.10 8.30 91% 21.59 22.01 >> > > 102% >> > > > > >>> 40.97 40.93 100% >> > > > > >>>> seeker_next_ms 1073.45 1053.51 98% 4452.52 4728.96 >> > 106% >> > > > > >>> 9359.61 9706.06 104% 18879.28 18330.93 97% >> > > > > 47664.95 >> > > > > >>> 46404.26 97% 96511.83 92121.30 >> 95% >> > > > > >>>> store_next_ms 2651.11 2423.27 91% 12048.64 >> 11398.63 >> > > > > >>> 95% 24833.68 23586.20 95% 48493.26 >> > > > > 46574.38 >> > > > > >>> 96% 120786.00 115603.00 96% 240627.00 >> > > > > >>> 227945.00 95% >> > > > > >>>> store_reseek_ms 2.71 62.17 2297% 10.93 233.67 >> > > 2139% >> > > > > >>> 10.88 401.88 3693% 13.98 783.18 5601% 22.26 >> 1939.28 >> > > > 8714% >> > > > > >>> 24.32 4065.25 16714% >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> Rows=10000000 >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> ValueSize=20 >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> BlockEncoding=FAST_DIFF >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> Compress=NONE >> > > > > >>>> Filter=ALL >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 5:08 PM Andrew Purtell < >> > > apurt...@apache.org >> > > > > >> > > > > >>> wrote: >> > > > > >>>>> I used PE to generate 10M row tables with one family with >> > either >> > > 1, >> > > > > >> 10, >> > > > > >>> 20, 50, or 100 values per row (unique column-qualifiers). An >> > > increase >> > > > > in >> > > > > >>> wall clock time was noticeable, for example: >> > > > > >>>>> >> > > > > >>>>> 1.6.0 >> > > > > >>>>> >> > > > > >>>>> time ./bin/hbase pe --rows=5000000 --table=TestTable_f1_c20 >> > > > > >>> --columns=20 --nomapred scan 2 >> > > > > >>>>> real 1m20.179s >> > > > > >>>>> user 0m45.470s >> > > > > >>>>> sys 0m16.572s >> > > > > >>>>> >> > > > > >>>>> 2.2.5 >> > > > > >>>>> >> > > > > >>>>> time ./bin/hbase pe --rows=5000000 --table=TestTable_f1_c20 >> > > > > >>> --columns=20 --nomapred scan 2 >> > > > > >>>>> real 1m31.016s >> > > > > >>>>> user 0m48.658s >> > > > > >>>>> sys 0m16.965s >> > > > > >>>>> >> > > > > >>>>> It didnt really make a difference if I used 1 thread or 4 or >> > 10, >> > > > the >> > > > > >>> delta was about the same, proportionally. I picked two >> threads in >> > > the >> > > > > end >> > > > > >>> so I'd have enough time to launch async-profiler twice in >> another >> > > > > shell, >> > > > > >> to >> > > > > >>> capture flamegraph and call tree output, respectively. >> > > async-profiler >> > > > > >>> captured 10 seconds at steady state per test case. Upon first >> > > > > inspection >> > > > > >>> what jumps out is an increasing proportion of CPU time spent >> in >> > GC >> > > in >> > > > > >> 2.2.5 >> > > > > >>> vs 1.6.0. The difference increases as the number of column >> > families >> > > > > >>> increase. There is little apparent difference at 1 column >> family, >> > > > but a >> > > > > >> 2x >> > > > > >>> or more difference at 20 columns, and a 10x or more >> difference at >> > > 100 >> > > > > >>> columns, eyeballing the charts, flipping back and forth >> between >> > > > browser >> > > > > >>> windows. This seems more than coincidental but obviously calls >> > for >> > > > > >> capture >> > > > > >>> and analysis of GC trace, with JFR. Will do that next. >> > > > > >>>>> >> > > > > >>>>> JVM: openjdk version "1.8.0_232" OpenJDK Runtime Environment >> > > (Zulu >> > > > > >>> 8.42.0.21-CA-macosx) (build 1.8.0_232-b18) OpenJDK 64-Bit >> Server >> > VM >> > > > > (Zulu >> > > > > >>> 8.42.0.21-CA-macosx) (build 25.232-b18, mixed mode) >> > > > > >>>>> >> > > > > >>>>> Regionserver JVM flags: -Xms10g -Xmx10g -XX:+UseG1GC >> > > > > >>> -XX:+AlwaysPreTouch -XX:+UseNUMA -XX:-UseBiasedLocking >> > > > > >>> -XX:+ParallelRefProcEnabled >> > > > > >>>>> >> > > > > >>>>> >> > > > > >>>>> On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 7:06 AM Jan Van Besien < >> > ja...@ngdata.com >> > > > >> > > > > >>> wrote: >> > > > > >>>>>> This is promising, thanks a lot. Testing with hbase 2.2.5 >> > shows >> > > an >> > > > > >>>>>> improvement, but we're not there yet. >> > > > > >>>>>> >> > > > > >>>>>> As reported earlier, hbase 2.1.0 was about 60% slower than >> > hbase >> > > > > >> 1.2.0 >> > > > > >>>>>> in a test that simply scans all the regions in parallel >> > without >> > > > any >> > > > > >>>>>> filter. A test with hbase 2.2.5 shows it to be about 40% >> > slower >> > > > than >> > > > > >>>>>> 1.2.0. So that is better than 2.1.0, but still >> substantially >> > > > slower >> > > > > >>>>>> than what hbase 1.2.0 was. >> > > > > >>>>>> >> > > > > >>>>>> As before, I tested this both on a 3 node cluster as well >> as >> > > with >> > > > a >> > > > > >>>>>> unit test using HBaseTestingUtility. Both tests show very >> > > similar >> > > > > >>>>>> relative differences. >> > > > > >>>>>> >> > > > > >>>>>> Jan >> > > > > >>>>>> >> > > > > >>>>>> On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 2:16 PM Anoop John < >> > > anoop.hb...@gmail.com >> > > > > >> > > > > >>> wrote: >> > > > > >>>>>>> >> > > > > >>>>>>> In another mail thread Zheng Hu brought up an important >> Jra >> > fix >> > > > > >>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21657 >> > > > > >>>>>>> Can u pls check with this once? >> > > > > >>>>>>> >> > > > > >>>>>>> Anoop >> > > > > >>>>>>> >> > > > > >>>>>>> >> > > > > >>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 8:08 PM Jan Van Besien < >> > > ja...@ngdata.com> >> > > > > >>> wrote: >> > > > > >>>>>>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> On Sun, Jun 7, 2020 at 7:49 AM Anoop John < >> > > > anoop.hb...@gmail.com >> > > > > >>> >> > > > > >>> wrote: >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> As per the above configs, it looks like Bucket Cache is >> not >> > > > > >>> being used. >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Only on heap LRU cache in use. >> > > > > >>>>>>>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> True (but it is large enough to hold everything, so I >> don't >> > > > think >> > > > > >>> it >> > > > > >>>>>>>> matters). >> > > > > >>>>>>>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> @Jan - Is it possible for you to test with off heap >> Bucket >> > > > > >> Cache? >> > > > > >>>>>>>> Config >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> bucket cache off heap mode with size ~7.5 GB >> > > > > >>>>>>>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> I did a quick test but it seems not to make a measurable >> > > > > >>> difference. >> > > > > >>>>>>>> If anything, it is actually slightly slower even. I see >> 100% >> > > hit >> > > > > >>> ratio >> > > > > >>>>>>>> in the L1 >> > > > > >>>>>>>> LruBlockCache and effectively also 100% in the L2 >> > BucketCache >> > > > > >> (hit >> > > > > >>>>>>>> ratio is not yet at 100% but hits increase with every >> test >> > and >> > > > > >>> misses >> > > > > >>>>>>>> do not). >> > > > > >>>>>>>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> Given that the LruBlockCache was already large enough to >> > cache >> > > > > >> all >> > > > > >>> the >> > > > > >>>>>>>> data anyway, I did not expect this to help either, to be >> > > honest. >> > > > > >>>>>>>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Do you have any DataBlockEncoding enabled on the CF? >> > > > > >>>>>>>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> Yes, FAST_DIFF. But this is of course true in both the >> tests >> > > > with >> > > > > >>>>>>>> hbase2 and hbase1. >> > > > > >>>>>>>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> Jan >> > > > > >>>>>>>> >> > > > > >>>>> >> > > > > >>>>> >> > > > > >>>>> -- >> > > > > >>>>> Best regards, >> > > > > >>>>> Andrew >> > > > > >>>>> >> > > > > >>>>> Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn >> from >> > > > > truth's >> > > > > >>> decrepit hands >> > > > > >>>>> - A23, Crosstalk >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> -- >> > > > > >>>> Best regards, >> > > > > >>>> Andrew >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn >> from >> > > > truth's >> > > > > >>> decrepit hands >> > > > > >>>> - A23, Crosstalk >> > > > > >>> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > -- >> > > Best regards, >> > > Andrew >> > > >> > > Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from truth's >> > > decrepit hands >> > > - A23, Crosstalk >> > > >> > >> >> >> -- >> Bruno Dumon >> NGDATA >> http://www.ngdata.com/ >> >
