[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-20188?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16441396#comment-16441396
]
stack commented on HBASE-20188:
-------------------------------
I added another sheet to the report (Truncate 04/17). It provides detail on
summary given above, that hbase2 -- when the table is truncated when we go from
1.2.7 to 2.0.0 runs -- is a good bit faster reading but still slower when pure
reads. In this default YCSB hbase2 is good enough for now. There is a bunch we
can do to optimize but no easy win after study; will require effort.
As per an off-list comment by [~ram_krish], indeed, the YCSB default is no
client-side batching -- see below where payload is 1.7k though we are set to
use bufferedmutator. Let me try PE, the tool [~anoop.hbase] has been using. It
does batching.
{code}
501411 2018-04-17 11:07:34,037 TRACE
[RpcServer.default.FPBQ.Fifo.handler=46,queue=1,port=16020] ipc.RpcServer:
callId: 2477247 service: ClientService methodName: Multi size: 1.7 K
connection: 10.17.240.20:58304 deadline: 9223372036854775807 param: region=
ycsb,user5139312943861817391,
1523988283780.8a9442655986021253d3acc69dde60df., for 1 actions and 1st row
key=user6571173983002699380 connection: 10.17.240.20:58304, response
regionActionResult { resultOrException { index: 0 result { } } }
regionStatistics { } queueTime: 0 processingTime: 6 totalTime: 6
{code}
> [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-xac.sh,
> HBASE-20188.sh, HBase 2.0 performance evaluation - 8GB(1).pdf, HBase 2.0
> performance evaluation - 8GB.pdf, 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,
> flamegraph-1072.1.svg, flamegraph-1072.2.svg, hbase-env.sh, hbase-site.xml,
> hbase-site.xml, hits.png, lock.127.workloadc.20180402T200918Z.svg,
> lock.2.memsize2.c.20180403T160257Z.svg, perregion.png, run_ycsb.sh,
> total.png, tree.txt, workloadx, workloadx
>
>
> 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)
