Am I correct in deducing there were on the order of 1.5-2.0 *trillion* queries in a 24 hour span?
2016-11-18 23:35 GMT-08:00 Anoop John <[email protected]>: > Because of some compatibility issues, we decide that this will be done > in 2.0 only.. Ya as Andy said, it would be great to share the 1.x > backported patches. Is it a mega patch at ur end? Or issue by issue > patches? Latter would be best. Pls share patches in some place and a > list of issues backported. I can help with verifying the issues once > so as to make sure we dont miss any... > > -Anoop- > > On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 12:32 AM, Enis Söztutar <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Thanks for sharing this. Great work. > > > > I don't see any reason why we cannot backport to branch-1. > > > > Enis > > > > On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 9:37 AM, Andrew Purtell < > [email protected]> > > wrote: > > > >> Yes, please, the patches will be useful to the community even if we > decide > >> not to backport into an official 1.x release. > >> > >> > >> > On Nov 18, 2016, at 12:25 PM, Bryan Beaudreault < > >> [email protected]> wrote: > >> > > >> > Is the backported patch available anywhere? Not seeing it on the > >> referenced > >> > JIRA. If it ends up not getting officially backported to branch-1 due > to > >> > 2.0 around the corner, some of us who build our own deploy may want to > >> > integrate into our builds. Thanks! These numbers look great > >> > > >> >> On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 12:20 PM Anoop John <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> Hi Yu Li > >> >> Good to see that the off heap work help you.. The perf > >> >> numbers looks great. So this is a compare of on heap L1 cache vs off > >> heap > >> >> L2 cache(HBASE-11425 enabled). So for 2.0 we should make L2 off > heap > >> >> cache ON by default I believe. Will raise a jira for that we can > >> discuss > >> >> under that. Seems like L2 off heap cache for data blocks and L1 > cache > >> for > >> >> index blocks seems a right choice. > >> >> > >> >> Thanks for the backport and the help in testing the feature.. You > were > >> >> able to find some corner case bugs and helped community to fix them.. > >> >> Thanks goes to ur whole team. > >> >> > >> >> -Anoop- > >> >> > >> >> > >> >>> On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 10:14 PM, Yu Li <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >>> > >> >>> Sorry guys, let me retry the inline images: > >> >>> > >> >>> Performance w/o offheap: > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> Performance w/ offheap: > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> Peak Get QPS of one single RS during Singles' Day (11/11): > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> And attach the files in case inline still not working: > >> >>> > >> >>> Performance_without_offheap.png > >> >>> < > >> >> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B017Q40_ > F5uwbWEzUGktYVIya3JkcXVjRkFvVG > >> NtM0VxWC1n/view?usp=drive_web > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> Performance_with_offheap.png > >> >>> < > >> >> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B017Q40_ > F5uweGR2cnJEU0M1MWwtRFJ5YkxUeF > >> VrcUdPc2ww/view?usp=drive_web > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> Peak_Get_QPS_of_Single_RS.png > >> >>> < > >> >> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B017Q40_ > F5uwQ2FkR2k0ZmEtRVNGSFp5RUxHM3 > >> F6bHpNYnJz/view?usp=drive_web > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> Best Regards, > >> >>> Yu > >> >>> > >> >>>> On 18 November 2016 at 19:29, Ted Yu <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Yu: > >> >>>> With positive results, more hbase users would be asking for the > >> backport > >> >>>> of offheap read path patches. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Do you think you or your coworker has the bandwidth to publish > >> backport > >> >>>> for branch-1 ? > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Thanks > >> >>>> > >> >>>>> On Nov 18, 2016, at 12:11 AM, Yu Li <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Dear all, > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> We have backported read path offheap (HBASE-11425) to our > customized > >> >>>> hbase-1.1.2 (thanks @Anoop for the help/support) and run it online > for > >> >> more > >> >>>> than a month, and would like to share our experience, for what it's > >> >> worth > >> >>>> (smile). > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Generally speaking, we gained a better and more stable > >> >>>> throughput/performance with offheap, and below are some details: > >> >>>>> 1. QPS become more stable with offheap > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Performance w/o offheap: > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Performance w/ offheap: > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> These data come from our online A/B test cluster (with 450 > physical > >> >>>> machines, and each with 256G memory + 64 core) with real world > >> >> workloads, > >> >>>> it shows using offheap we could gain a more stable throughput as > well > >> as > >> >>>> better performance > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Not showing fully online data here because for online we published > >> the > >> >>>> version with both offheap and NettyRpcServer together, so no > >> standalone > >> >>>> comparison data for offheap > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> 2. Full GC frequency and cost > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Average Full GC STW time reduce from 11s to 7s with offheap. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> 3. Young GC frequency and cost > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> No performance degradation observed with offheap. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> 4. Peak throughput of one single RS > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> On Singles Day (11/11), peak throughput of one single RS reached > >> 100K, > >> >>>> among which 90K from Get. Plus internet in/out data we could know > the > >> >>>> average result size of get request is ~1KB > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Offheap are used on all online machines (more than 1600 nodes) > >> instead > >> >>>> of LruCache, so the above QPS is gained from offheap bucketcache, > >> along > >> >>>> with NettyRpcServer(HBASE-15756). > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Just let us know if any comments. Thanks. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Best Regards, > >> >>>>> Yu > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >> > >> >
