PS so what should latency be for reads in 0.90, assuming moderate thruput?
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 5:39 PM, Dmitriy Lyubimov <dlie...@gmail.com> wrote: > for this test, there's just no more than 40 rows in every given table. > This is just a laugh check. > > so i think it's safe to assume it all goes to same region server. > > But latency would not depend on which server call is going to, would > it? Only throughput would, assuming we are not overloading. > > And we clearly are not as my single-node local version runs quite ok > response times with the same throughput. > > It's something with either client connections or network latency or > ... i don't know what it is. I did not set up the cluster but i gotta > troubleshoot it now :) > > > > On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 5:23 PM, Ted Dunning <tdunn...@maprtech.com> wrote: >> How many regions? How are they distributed? >> >> Typically it is good to fill the table some what and then drive some >> splits and balance operations via the shell. One more split to make >> the regions be local and you should be good to go. Make sure you have >> enough keys in the table to support these splits, of course. >> >> Under load, you can look at the hbase home page to see how >> transactions are spread around your cluster. Without splits and local >> region files, you aren't going to see what you want in terms of >> performance. >> >
