does the number of regionservers affect this performance??
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 11:23 AM, shourabh rawat <[email protected]> wrote: > hey, > > "> What do you mean by the above when you say read sequentially? Are you >> scanning? (Getting a scanner and then nexting through your hbase table?)." > > well lets say i have 10 keys that are stored in hbase > i want to retrive them > > If I do the reads one by one the time would be summation of 'get' > times of each key > Could i do the same thing in parallel. so that all the get's cld occur > concurrently so i would get total time as the max of the time taken by > any of these keys rather than the summ of individual times > > > " >> You will have to wait for hbase 0.20.0 or do as Erik suggests and put a >> cache in front of hbase. What are you trying to do with hbase? Serve a >> website? " > > ya sort of but i want to check performance withought the use of cache > (random reads) ....can i get such performance in the range of 10 ms > with hbase > >> Yeah, the RPC keeps a single connection per remote server but channel is >> shared by request and receive. Testing in past, the more remote servers, >> the better, but even if a few only, concurrent HTables got better throughput >> than one running requests in series (the single connection is not fully >> occupied by requests and responses). >> > > so by a single connection u mean all the gets wld be treated > sequentially (one by one) by the hbase even wen the requests come in > parallel(even wen different htable instances for the same table are > employed)....is there any way i can make it parallel..... > The hbase master has one port that it specifies and other is the port > for the hdfs (hadoop)....what can be done to increase the number of > connection as u said....... > > > Thanx for yr help. >
