So i can't seem to be able to immediately find the explanation for those metrics

- rpcQueueTime -- do I assume it correctly it's the time a request
sits waiting int the incoming rpc queue before being picked up by
handler ?

-rpcProcessingTime -- do i assume it correctly it's time of request
being processed by region server's handler?

So inner time to last byte should be approximately sum of those, right?

Thanks.
-Dmitriy

On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 1:17 PM, Dmitriy Lyubimov <[email protected]> wrote:
> Yes that's what i said. there's metric for fs latency but we are not
> hitting it so it's not useful.
>
> Question is which one might be useful to measure inner ttlb, and i
> don't see it there.
>
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 1:14 PM, Ted Dunning <[email protected]> wrote:
>> FS latency shouldn't matter with your 99.9% cache hit rate as reported.
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 12:55 PM, Dmitriy Lyubimov <[email protected]>wrote:
>>
>>> Yes -- I already looked thru 'regionserver' metrics some time ago in
>>> hbase book. And i am not sure there's a 'inner ttlb' metric.
>>>
>>> There are fs latency metrics there but nothing for the respons times.
>>> fs latency is essentially hdfs latency AFAICT and that would not be
>>> relevant to what i am asking for (for as long as we are hitting LRU
>>> block cache anyway). we are not hitting fs.
>>>
>>> Unless there are more metrics than listed in the Hbase Book?
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 12:46 PM, Stack <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> > Enable rpc logging.  Will show in your ganglia.  See metrics article
>>> > on hbase home page.
>>> >
>>> > On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Dmitriy Lyubimov <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>> >> Is there any way to log 'inner' TTLB times the region server incurs for
>>> reads?
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 12:43 PM, Dmitriy Lyubimov <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>> >>> i just enabled debug logging for o.a.h.hbase logger in that particular
>>> >>> region server... so far not much except for LRUBlock cache spitting
>>> >>> metrics ..
>>> >>>
>>> >>> 2011-04-20 12:28:48,375 DEBUG
>>> >>> org.apache.hadoop.hbase.io.hfile.LruBlockCache: LRU Stats: total=8.26
>>> >>> MB, free=190.08 MB, max=198.34 MB, blocks=112, accesses=55732209,
>>> >>> hits=55732083, hitRatio=99.99%%, cachingAccesses=55732195,
>>> >>> cachingHits=55732083, cachingHitsRatio=99.99%%, evictions=0,
>>> >>> evicted=0, evictedPerRun=NaN
>>> >>> 2011-04-20 12:33:48,375 DEBUG
>>> >>> org.apache.hadoop.hbase.io.hfile.LruBlockCache: LRU Stats: total=8.26
>>> >>> MB, free=190.08 MB, max=198.34 MB, blocks=112, accesses=56703200,
>>> >>> hits=56703074, hitRatio=99.99%%, cachingAccesses=56703186,
>>> >>> cachingHits=56703074, cachingHitsRatio=99.99%%, evictions=0,
>>> >>> evicted=0, evictedPerRun=NaN
>>> >>> 2011-04-20 12:38:48,375 DEBUG
>>> >>> org.apache.hadoop.hbase.io.hfile.LruBlockCache: LRU Stats: total=8.26
>>> >>> MB, free=190.08 MB, max=198.34 MB, blocks=112, accesses=57708231,
>>> >>> hits=57708105, hitRatio=99.99%%, cachingAccesses=57708217,
>>> >>> cachingHits=57708105, cachingHitsRatio=99.99%%, evictions=0,
>>> >>> evicted=0, evictedPerRun=NaN
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 12:35 PM, Stack <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> >>>> If one region only, then its located on a single regionserver.  Tail
>>> >>>> that regionservers logs.  It might tell us something.
>>> >>>> St.Ack
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 12:25 PM, Stack <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> >>>>> On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 12:25 PM, Stack <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 4:46 PM, Dmitriy Lyubimov <
>>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>> Right now i am shooting scans returning between 3 and 40 rows and
>>> >>>>>>> regardless of data size, approximately 500-400 QPS. The data tables
>>> >>>>>>> are almost empty and in-memory, so they surely should fit in those
>>> 40%
>>> >>>>>>> heap dedicated to them.
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> How many clients are going against the cluster?  If you use less, do
>>> >>>>>> your numbers improve?
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> And all these clients are going against a single 40 row table?
>>> >>>>> St.Ack
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>>
>>
>

Reply via email to