[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-11323?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
 ]

stack updated HBASE-11323:
--------------------------

    Attachment: BlockCacheReportLruBlockCachevsOffHeapCombinedBlockCacheSmall4G 
(1).pdf

bq. Need to redo with different sized rows.

Attached is a new report that has zipfian sized cells from 1-256k bytes. 
Concludes that offheap CombinedBlockCache is generaly best for all cases except 
the one where we are serving all requests from cache; in this latter case near 
twice the throughput and half the GC'ing if LruBlockCache.  Otherwise offheap 
CBC is better.

> BucketCache all the time!
> -------------------------
>
>                 Key: HBASE-11323
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-11323
>             Project: HBase
>          Issue Type: Sub-task
>          Components: io
>            Reporter: stack
>            Assignee: stack
>             Fix For: 2.0.0
>
>         Attachments: 
> BlockCacheReportLruBlockCachevsOffHeapCombinedBlockCacheSmall4G (1).pdf, 
> ReportBlockCache.pdf
>
>
> One way to realize the parent issue is to just enable bucket cache all the 
> time; i.e. always have offheap enabled.  Would have to do some work to make 
> it drop-dead simple on initial setup (I think it doable).
> So, upside would be the offheap upsides (less GC, less likely to go away and 
> never come back because of full GC when heap is large, etc.).
> Downside is higher latency.   In Nick's BlockCache 101 there is little to no 
> difference between onheap and offheap.  In a basic compare doing scans and 
> gets -- details to follow -- I have BucketCache deploy about 20% less ops 
> than LRUBC when all incache and maybe 10% less ops when falling out of cache. 
>   I can't tell difference in means and 95th and 99th are roughly same (more 
> stable with BucketCache).  GC profile is much better with BucketCache -- way 
> less.  BucketCache uses about 7% more user CPU.
> More detail on comparison to follow.
> I think the numbers disagree enough we should probably do the [~lhofhansl] 
> suggestion, that we allow you to have a table sit in LRUBC, something the 
> current bucket cache layout does not do.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)

Reply via email to