[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-16890?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15638369#comment-15638369
]
Duo Zhang commented on HBASE-16890:
-----------------------------------
If we have more sync request for AsyncFSWAL then no doubt FSHLog does better on
aggregating and I think it is possble.
We have five threads do syncing for FSHLog, so the most number of pending sync
request will be five. If we reach the number then we are forced to do
aggregating. But for AsyncFSWAL, there is no such limitation. Maybe we could
also introduce a limit for AsyncFSWAL. Let me have a try.
> Analyze the performance of AsyncWAL and fix the same
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HBASE-16890
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-16890
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Components: wal
> Affects Versions: 2.0.0
> Reporter: ramkrishna.s.vasudevan
> Assignee: ramkrishna.s.vasudevan
> Fix For: 2.0.0
>
> Attachments: AsyncWAL_disruptor.patch, AsyncWAL_disruptor_1
> (2).patch, AsyncWAL_disruptor_3.patch, AsyncWAL_disruptor_3.patch,
> AsyncWAL_disruptor_4.patch, AsyncWAL_disruptor_6.patch,
> HBASE-16890-rc-v2.patch, HBASE-16890-rc-v3.patch,
> HBASE-16890-remove-contention-v1.patch, HBASE-16890-remove-contention.patch,
> Screen Shot 2016-10-25 at 7.34.47 PM.png, Screen Shot 2016-10-25 at 7.39.07
> PM.png, Screen Shot 2016-10-25 at 7.39.48 PM.png, Screen Shot 2016-11-04 at
> 5.21.27 PM.png, Screen Shot 2016-11-04 at 5.30.18 PM.png, async.svg,
> classic.svg, contention.png, contention_defaultWAL.png
>
>
> Tests reveal that AsyncWAL under load in single node cluster performs slower
> than the Default WAL. This task is to analyze and see if we could fix it.
> See some discussions in the tail of JIRA HBASE-15536.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
