[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-17035?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15646432#comment-15646432
]
Anoop Sam John commented on HBASE-17035:
----------------------------------------
So how is the perf now compared to old wal? U see some improve? Or there may
be some more things.
Elsewhere mentioned abt the #syncs more in async wal. So seems like the
latency associated with sync() op is much reduced and so we get more frequent
sync calls getting passed as IO op. When the sync() is taking time, the next
sync will accumulate more append and so reduced total# syncs. So this is a
clear trade off?
> Check why we roll a wal writer at 10MB when the configured roll size is 120M+
> with AsyncFSWAL
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HBASE-17035
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-17035
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Components: wal
> Affects Versions: 2.0.0
> Reporter: Duo Zhang
> Assignee: Duo Zhang
> Fix For: 2.0.0
>
>
> Found this when addressing HBASE-16890. It is one of the possible reason that
> why AsyncFSWAL performs worse than FSHLog when running PE tool.
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-16890?focusedCommentId=15636688&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-15636688
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
