[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15619?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
stack updated HBASE-15619:
--------------------------
Attachment: compare.png
I ran loadings comparing 0.98.13 (works w/ jdk8) to tip of 1.1 and branch-1.
The diagram shows three versions of the software all undergoing 5 loadings.
# C-Empty is running ycsb workload c against an empty table
# load is running 20minutes of loading of table
# A is workload 'a'; i.e. 50/50 read/write for 20minutes
# C is workload 'c' against loaded table
# C` is running workload c alone where we are get keys most of the time but
fail to find values almost as much.
>From the diagram we can see:
# For empty table, indeed there is regression.
# For load phase, 1.1 and branch-1 tip are a little slower
# For workload 'A', 50/50, all are about same.
# For workload 'C' when our random read is actually fetching keys, 1.1 and
branch-1 are about 25% better.
# For the case where we are reading values about 60% of the time and doing
reads of non-existent values about 40% of the time, we are about 15% slower in
1.1 and branch-1.
I'm thinking that us being bad at reading non-existent values is a problem but
not a critical issue. What you think [~carp84]? Seems like 1.1 is about the
same as 0.98 otherwise (I thought it was much better).
> Performance regression observed: Empty random read(get) performance of
> branch-1 worse than 0.98
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HBASE-15619
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15619
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: Bug
> Reporter: Yu Li
> Assignee: Yu Li
> Priority: Critical
> Attachments: compare.png
>
>
> As titled, I observed the perf regression in the final stress testing before
> upgrading our online cluster to 1.x. More details as follows:
> 1. HBase version in the comparison test:
> * 0.98: based on 0.98.12 with some backports, among which HBASE-11297 is
> the most important perf-related one (especially under high stress)
> * 1.x: checked 3 releases in total
> 1) 1.1.2 with important perf fixes/improvements including HBASE-15031
> and HBASE-14465
> 2) 1.1.4 release
> 3) 1.2.1RC1
> 2. Test environment
> * YCSB: 0.7.0 with
> [YCSB-651|https://github.com/brianfrankcooper/YCSB/pull/651] applied
> * Client: 4 physical nodes, each with 8 YCSB instance, each instance with
> 100 threads
> * Server: 1 Master with 3 RS, each RS with 256 handlers and 64G heap
> * Hardware: 64-core CPU, 256GB Mem, 10Gb Net, 1 PCIe-SSD and 11 HDD, same
> hardware for client and server
> 3. Test cases
> * -p fieldcount=1 -p fieldlength=128 -p readproportion=1
> * case #1: read against empty table
> * -case #2: lrucache 100% hit-
> * -case #3: BLOCKCACHE=>false-
> 4. Test result
> * 1.1.4 and 1.2.1 have a similar perf (less than 2% deviation) as 1.1.2+, so
> will only paste comparison data of 0.98.12+ and 1.1.2+
> * per-RS Throughput(ops/s)
> ||HBaseVersion||case#1||-case#2-||-case#3-||
> |0.98.12+|383562|-257493-|-47594-|
> |1.1.2+|363050|-232757-|-35872-|
> * AverageLatency(us)
> ||HBaseVersion||case#1||-case#2-||-case#3-||
> |0.98.12+|2774|-4134-|-22371-|
> |1.1.2+|2930|-4572-|-29690-|
> It seems there's perf regression on RPCServer (we tried 0.98 client against
> 1.x server and observed a similar perf to 1.x client)
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
