Eshcar Hillel commented on HBASE-20188:

{quote}Did you use hbase defaults or did you change segment count or flush size 
from default?
No I did not change any default except for the system settings (cms and mslab) 
in the second and third experiment.
 2 major differences with respect to your setting is (1) I run on SSD *and* (2) 
I use only 8GB heap. 
 Are you still using 31GB heap in your runs? 31GB heap for 25GB of data is too 
much. With 8GB I think the gc affect is more pronounced.

You can run an experiment with 0.02 (this was shown to be optimal once) but I 
wouldn't haste in changing *any* default before we run full experiments. There 
are several parameters that affect each other, as I mentioned above (pipeline 
length, active portion CAM/CCM, etc.), and I would like to check all of them 
more deeply, both in the current workloada/workloadc and in an additional 
 But before we run any further experiments, can you please share how can we 
switch on short-circuit reads in our experiments? Thanks.

> [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_OPs.png, YCSB_in-memory-compaction=NONE.ops.png, YCSB_load.png, 
> flamegraph-1072.1.svg, flamegraph-1072.2.svg, 
> lock.127.workloadc.20180402T200918Z.svg, 
> lock.2.memsize2.c.20180403T160257Z.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

Reply via email to