If only 1 region, providing more than one nodes will probably just
slow down the test since the load is handled by one machine which has
to replicate blocks 2 times. I think your test would have much more
value if you really grew at least to 10 regions. Also make sure to run
the tests more than once on completely new hbase setups (drop table +
restart should be enough).
May I also recommend upgrading to hbase 0.20.3? It will provide a
better experience in general.
J-D
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 2:49 AM, Vincent Barat <vincent.ba...@ubikod.com> wrote:
> Unfortunately I can post only some snapshots.
>
> I have no region split (I insert just 100000 rows so there is no split,
> except when I don't use compression).
>
> I use HBase 0.20.2 and to insert I use the HTable.put(list<Put>);
>
> The only difference between my 3 tests is the way I create the test table:
>
> HBaseAdmin admin = new HBaseAdmin(config);
>
> HTableDescriptor desc = new HTableDescriptor(name);
>
> HColumnDescriptor colDesc;
>
> colDesc = new HColumnDescriptor(Bytes.toBytes("meta:"));
> colDesc.setMaxVersions(1);
> colDesc.setCompressionType(Algorithm.GZ); <- LZO or NONE
> desc.addFamily(colDesc);
>
> colDesc = new HColumnDescriptor(Bytes.toBytes("data:"));
> colDesc.setMaxVersions(1);
> colDesc.setCompressionType(Algorithm.GZ); <- LZO or NONE
> desc.addFamily(colDesc);
>
> admin.createTable(desc);
>
> A typical row inserted is made of 13 columns with a short content, as show
> here:
>
> 1264761195240/6ffc3fe659023 column=data:accuracy, timestamp=1267006115356,
> value=1317
> a3c9cfed0a50a9f199ed42f2730
> 1264761195240/6ffc3fe659023 column=data:alt, timestamp=1267006115356,
> value=0
> a3c9cfed0a50a9f199ed42f2730
> 1264761195240/6ffc3fe659023 column=data:country, timestamp=1267006115356,
> value=France
> a3c9cfed0a50a9f199ed42f2730
> 1264761195240/6ffc3fe659023 column=data:countrycode,
> timestamp=1267006115356, value=FR
> a3c9cfed0a50a9f199ed42f2730
> 1264761195240/6ffc3fe659023 column=data:lat, timestamp=1267006115356,
> value=48.65869706
> a3c9cfed0a50a9f199ed42f2730
> 1264761195240/6ffc3fe659023 column=data:locality, timestamp=1267006115356,
> value=Morsang-sur-Orge
> a3c9cfed0a50a9f199ed42f2730
> 1264761195240/6ffc3fe659023 column=data:lon, timestamp=1267006115356,
> value=2.36138182
> a3c9cfed0a50a9f199ed42f2730
> 1264761195240/6ffc3fe659023 column=data:postalcode,
> timestamp=1267006115356, value=91390
> a3c9cfed0a50a9f199ed42f2730
> 1264761195240/6ffc3fe659023 column=data:region, timestamp=1267006115356,
> value=Ile-de-France
> a3c9cfed0a50a9f199ed42f2730
> 1264761195240/6ffc3fe659023 column=meta:imei, timestamp=1267006115356,
> value=6ffc3fe659023a3c9cfed0a50a9f199e
> a3c9cfed0a50a9f199ed42f2730 d42f2730
> 1264761195240/6ffc3fe659023 column=meta:infoid, timestamp=1267006115356,
> value=ca30781e0c375a1236afbf323cbfa4
> a3c9cfed0a50a9f199ed42f2730 0dc2c7c7af
> 1264761195240/6ffc3fe659023 column=meta:locid, timestamp=1267006115356,
> value=5e15a0281e83cfe55ec1c362f84a39f
> a3c9cfed0a50a9f199ed42f2730 006f18128
> 1264761195240/6ffc3fe659023 column=meta:timestamp, timestamp=1267006115356,
> value=1264761195240
> a3c9cfed0a50a9f199ed42f2730
>
> Maybe LZO works much better with fewer rows with bigger content?
>
> Le 24/02/10 19:10, Jean-Daniel Cryans a écrit :
>>
>> Are you able to post the code used for the insertion? It could be
>> something with your usage pattern or something wrong with the code
>> itself.
>>
>> How many rows are you inserting? Do you even have some region splits?
>>
>> J-D
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 1:52 AM, Vincent Barat<vincent.ba...@ubikod.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> 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 ?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
