[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-20188?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16424884#comment-16424884
]
stack edited comment on HBASE-20188 at 4/4/18 2:25 AM:
-------------------------------------------------------
Fixing short-circuit reads config made a big difference to hbase2 read
throughput putting it close to hbase-1.2.7. Let me update the report. hbase1
seemed fine with having shortcircuit reads = true but hbase2 was complaining
falling back on remote reads. The giveaway was the differing lock profiles.
Here is hbase1's locking profile for workloadc looked like:
[See below...]
Notice how we are blocking on the ShortCircuitCache cache inside in *local*
BlockReader.
A run against hbase2 with same configurations had this locking profile:
[^cpu.2.memsize2.c.20180403T160257Z.svg]
There are a few things going on but we are sticking on PeerCache from *remote*
BlockReader.
Looking in hbase2 regionserver logs, it seems like we ran fine for a while and
then the shortcircuit cache would throw exceptions and hold up the handler a
while. Our doc on short-circuit setup is stale. Updated it here HBASE-20337
was (Author: stack):
Fixing short-circuit reads config made a big difference to hbase2 read
throughput putting it close to hbase-1.2.7. Let me update the report. hbase1
seemed fine with having shortcircuit reads = true but hbase2 was complaining
falling back on remote reads. The giveaway was the differing lock profiles.
Here is hbase1's locking profile for workloadc looked like:
[^lock.127.workloadc.20180402T200918Z.svg]
Notice how we are blocking on the ShortCircuitCache cache inside in *local*
BlockReader.
A run against hbase2 with same configurations had this locking profile:
[^cpu.2.memsize2.c.20180403T160257Z.svg]
There are a few things going on but we are sticking on PeerCache from *remote*
BlockReader.
Looking in hbase2 regionserver logs, it seems like we ran fine for a while and
then the shortcircuit cache would throw exceptions and hold up the handler a
while. Our doc on short-circuit setup is stale. Updated it here HBASE-20337
> [TESTING] Performance
> ---------------------
>
> Key: HBASE-20188
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-20188
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: Umbrella
> Components: Performance
> Reporter: stack
> Assignee: stack
> Priority: Blocker
> Fix For: 2.0.0
>
> Attachments: CAM-CONFIG-V01.patch, HBASE-20188.sh, HBase 2.0
> performance evaluation - Basic vs None_ system settings.pdf,
> ITBLL2.5B_1.2.7vs2.0.0_cpu.png, ITBLL2.5B_1.2.7vs2.0.0_gctime.png,
> ITBLL2.5B_1.2.7vs2.0.0_iops.png, ITBLL2.5B_1.2.7vs2.0.0_load.png,
> ITBLL2.5B_1.2.7vs2.0.0_memheap.png, ITBLL2.5B_1.2.7vs2.0.0_memstore.png,
> ITBLL2.5B_1.2.7vs2.0.0_ops.png,
> ITBLL2.5B_1.2.7vs2.0.0_ops_NOT_summing_regions.png, YCSB_CPU.png,
> YCSB_GC_TIME.png, YCSB_IN_MEMORY_COMPACTION=NONE.ops.png, YCSB_MEMSTORE.png,
> YCSB_OPs.png, YCSB_in-memory-compaction=NONE.ops.png, YCSB_load.png,
> cpu.2.memsize2.c.20180403T160257Z.svg, flamegraph-1072.1.svg,
> flamegraph-1072.2.svg, lock.2.memsize2.c.20180403T160257Z.svg,
> misses.127.workloadc.20180402T200918Z.svg, tree.txt
>
>
> How does 2.0.0 compare to old versions? Is it faster, slower? There is rumor
> that it is much slower, that the problem is the asyncwal writing. Does
> in-memory compaction slow us down or speed us up? What happens when you
> enable offheaping?
> Keep notes here in this umbrella issue. Need to be able to say something
> about perf when 2.0.0 ships.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
