[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-16890?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16284373#comment-16284373
]
stack commented on HBASE-16890:
-------------------------------
That was better.
||workload||current||asyncfs||
|loading|5334 ops/s|7989 ops/s|
|workloada 50/50|8343 ops/s|11571 ops/s|
|workloadw 85writes/15reads|6608 ops/|10614 ops/s|
Ok. Looks like my first compare was bad because I was missing HBASE-18112.
Above was 10 ycsb threads.
Let me up concurrency to 25 threads and see how we do. Will report back. This
was with the hbase.wal.async.use-shared-event-loop set to false. Let me retry
with and without to see how much diff.
> 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
> Priority: Blocker
> Fix For: 2.0.0-beta-1
>
> 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,
> ycsb_FSHlog.vs.Async.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
(v6.4.14#64029)
