[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21657?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16735677#comment-16735677
]
Zheng Hu commented on HBASE-21657:
----------------------------------
[~stack], I updated the above comment [1] with performance of patch.v3. After
patch.v3, the estimatedSerializedSize (~5.6%) is not a bottleneck now, we can
see that in the [^HBase2.0.4-patch-v3-ssd-10000000-rows-flamegraph.svg] , it's
a good news. But why still 5.6% ? this method just return the length of a cell
now, maybe it's too frequent ...
1.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21657?focusedCommentId=16735455&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels%3Acomment-tabpanel#comment-16735455
> PrivateCellUtil#estimatedSerializedSizeOf has been the bottleneck in 100%
> scan case.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HBASE-21657
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21657
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Performance
> Reporter: Zheng Hu
> Assignee: Zheng Hu
> Priority: Major
> Fix For: 3.0.0, 2.2.0, 2.1.3, 2.0.5
>
> Attachments: HBASE-21657.v1.patch, HBASE-21657.v2.patch,
> HBASE-21657.v3.patch, HBASE-21657.v3.patch,
> HBase1.4.9-ssd-10000000-rows-flamegraph.svg,
> HBase1.4.9-ssd-10000000-rows-qps-latency.png,
> HBase2.0.4-patch-v2-ssd-10000000-rows-qps-and-latency.png,
> HBase2.0.4-patch-v2-ssd-10000000-rows.svg,
> HBase2.0.4-patch-v3-ssd-10000000-rows-flamegraph.svg,
> HBase2.0.4-patch-v3-ssd-10000000-rows-qps-and-latency.png,
> HBase2.0.4-ssd-10000000-rows-flamegraph.svg,
> HBase2.0.4-ssd-10000000-rows-qps-latency.png, HBase2.0.4-with-patch.v2.png,
> HBase2.0.4-without-patch-v2.png, hbase2.0.4-ssd-scan-traces.2.svg,
> hbase2.0.4-ssd-scan-traces.svg, hbase20-ssd-100-scan-traces.svg,
> image-2019-01-07-19-03-37-930.png, image-2019-01-07-19-03-55-577.png,
> overview-statstics-1.png, run.log
>
>
> We are evaluating the performance of branch-2, and find that the throughput
> of scan in SSD cluster is almost the same as HDD cluster. so I made a
> FlameGraph on RS, and found that the
> PrivateCellUtil#estimatedSerializedSizeOf cost about 29% cpu, Obviously, it
> has been the bottleneck in 100% scan case.
> See the [^hbase20-ssd-100-scan-traces.svg]
> BTW, in our XiaoMi branch, we introduce a
> HRegion#updateReadRequestsByCapacityUnitPerSecond to sum up the size of cells
> (for metric monitor), so it seems the performance loss was amplified.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
