BTW, i recall, when we just started to use HBase we tried to to performance testing with multiple thread (big amount of small size transactions) and there was no improvements, that the reason why we started to parallel in multiple process. Best Regards.
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 9:34 PM, stack <[email protected]> wrote: > Your inserts are 'fat' though, aren't they Michael? Laden with lots of > columns? > St.Ack > > > Michael Dagaev wrote: > >> Can you also post your results to the list ? We are using the apache >> commons pool and got the max. throughput ~10 inserts per sec. for one >> Hbase client, which is good enough for now. >> >> On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 9:20 PM, Slava Gorelik <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> >>> Hi.Looks very interesting, i'll try it. >>> >>> Thank You. >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 8:51 PM, Michael Dagaev < >>> [email protected]>wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> Hi, all >>>> >>>> Looks like the pooling does improve the throughput. I guess the >>>> pool size should depend on the number of region servers, i.e. max pool >>>> size = k*N, where N is the number of region servers and k > 1. >>>> Currently, I am using max size =20 for a 4-host cluster and the >>>> maximum throughput is achieved for ~20 concurrent threads. When we >>>> tried to add more threads the throughput did not increase, so the only >>>> solution is adding JVMs on client side. >>>> >>>> Thank you for your cooperation, >>>> M. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >
