Yes of course.
We use a 4 machine cluster (4 large instances on AWS): 8 GB RAM
each, dual core CPU. 1 is for the Hadoop and HBase namenode /
masters, and 3 are hosting the datanode / regionservers.
The table used for testing is first created, then I insert
sequentially a set of rows and count the nb of rows inserted by second.
I insert rows by set of 1000 (using HTable.put(list<Put>);
When reading, I read also sequentially by using a scanner (scanner
caching is set to 1024 rows).
Maybe our installation of LZO is not good ?
Le 23/02/10 22:15, Jean-Daniel Cryans a écrit :
Vincent,
I don't expect that either, can you give us more info about your test
environment?
Thx,
J-D
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 10:39 AM, Vincent Barat
<vincent.ba...@ubikod.com> wrote:
Hello,
I did some testing to figure out which compression algo I should use for my
HBase tables. I thought that LZO was the good candidate, but it appears that
it is the worst one.
I uses one table with 2 families and 10 columns. Each row has a total of 200
to 400 bytes.
Here is my results:
GZIP: 2600 to 3200 inserts/s 12000 to 15000 reads/s
NO COMPRESSION: 2000 to 2600 inserts/s 4900 to 5020 reads/s
LZO 1600 to 2100 inserts/s 4020 to 4600 reads/s
Do you have an explanation to this ? I though that the LZO compression was
always faster at compression and decompression than GZIP ?
