You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@hbase.apache.org by Stack <st...@duboce.net> on 2012/05/03 17:58:27 UTC
0.92.2?
Should I put up a 0.92.2 candidate? There have been a bunch of fixes
since 0.92.1: https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12310753&version=12319888
St.Ack
Re: 0.92.2?
Posted by Devaraj Das <dd...@hortonworks.com>.
+1
On May 3, 2012, at 8:58 AM, Stack wrote:
> Should I put up a 0.92.2 candidate? There have been a bunch of fixes
> since 0.92.1: https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12310753&version=12319888
>
> St.Ack
Re: 0.92.2?
Posted by Jean-Daniel Cryans <jd...@apache.org>.
FWIW we're running in production with a snapshot of 0.92 from May 8th
(so we're missing HBASE-5973 and 5922) and we don't see any issues.
I think we should release a first RC.
J-D
On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Luke Lu <ll...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Any update on the slowness of 0.92 especially for YCSB workload A
>> (50/50 read/write, which shows about 40% regression. A 15/85
>> read/write work load shows 60% regression)? 0.92 seem fine for pure
>> writes/reads.
>>
>
> Hey Luke:
>
> What did you test on? What was your cluster like? Unadorned YCSB?
> Can I have your commands? I'd like to repro.
>
> Thanks,
> St.Ack
Re: 0.92.2?
Posted by Stack <st...@duboce.net>.
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 4:55 PM, Luke Lu <ll...@apache.org> wrote:
> Looks like the workload A issue was due to an incorrect recordcount
> specified for 0.92 runs, as I asked for more details. AFAICT, 0.92 is
> significantly faster than 0.90 on a 3 (hbase/hdfs) +1 (ycsb) node
> cluster. Sorry for the noise and thanks for the great work :)
>
np Luke.
Let me role an RC for 0.92.2....
St.Ack
Re: 0.92.2?
Posted by Luke Lu <ll...@apache.org>.
Looks like the workload A issue was due to an incorrect recordcount
specified for 0.92 runs, as I asked for more details. AFAICT, 0.92 is
significantly faster than 0.90 on a 3 (hbase/hdfs) +1 (ycsb) node
cluster. Sorry for the noise and thanks for the great work :)
On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Luke Lu <ll...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Any update on the slowness of 0.92 especially for YCSB workload A
>> (50/50 read/write, which shows about 40% regression. A 15/85
>> read/write work load shows 60% regression)? 0.92 seem fine for pure
>> writes/reads.
>>
>
> Hey Luke:
>
> What did you test on? What was your cluster like? Unadorned YCSB?
> Can I have your commands? I'd like to repro.
>
> Thanks,
> St.Ack
Re: 0.92.2?
Posted by Stack <st...@duboce.net>.
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Luke Lu <ll...@apache.org> wrote:
> Any update on the slowness of 0.92 especially for YCSB workload A
> (50/50 read/write, which shows about 40% regression. A 15/85
> read/write work load shows 60% regression)? 0.92 seem fine for pure
> writes/reads.
>
Hey Luke:
What did you test on? What was your cluster like? Unadorned YCSB?
Can I have your commands? I'd like to repro.
Thanks,
St.Ack
Re: 0.92.2?
Posted by Luke Lu <ll...@apache.org>.
Any update on the slowness of 0.92 especially for YCSB workload A
(50/50 read/write, which shows about 40% regression. A 15/85
read/write work load shows 60% regression)? 0.92 seem fine for pure
writes/reads.
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Elliott Clark <ec...@stumbleupon.com> wrote:
> I'm going to try and test 0.94.0 RC3 a little today. After that I can try
> and do some poking to see why 92 was so slow.
>
> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 10:09 AM, Todd Lipcon <to...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
>> Anyone looked into the apparent performance issue that Elliott reported
>> earlier this week? If we have a big perf regression from 0.90 we should
>> probably spend at least a few minutes looking into it.
>>
>> -Todd
>>
>> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 8:58 AM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
>>
>> > Should I put up a 0.92.2 candidate? There have been a bunch of fixes
>> > since 0.92.1:
>> >
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12310753&version=12319888
>> >
>> > St.Ack
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Todd Lipcon
>> Software Engineer, Cloudera
>>
Re: 0.92.2?
Posted by Ted Yu <yu...@gmail.com>.
I think HBASE-5942 should be fixed before rolling out 0.92.2 RC.
Cheers
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 4:22 PM, Enis Söztutar <en...@apache.org> wrote:
> Shall we open a jira for investigating the performance issue, and mark it
> as a blocker for 0.92.2?
>
> Enis
>
> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Elliott Clark <eclark@stumbleupon.com
> >wrote:
>
> > I'm going to try and test 0.94.0 RC3 a little today. After that I can
> try
> > and do some poking to see why 92 was so slow.
> >
> > On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 10:09 AM, Todd Lipcon <to...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Anyone looked into the apparent performance issue that Elliott reported
> > > earlier this week? If we have a big perf regression from 0.90 we should
> > > probably spend at least a few minutes looking into it.
> > >
> > > -Todd
> > >
> > > On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 8:58 AM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Should I put up a 0.92.2 candidate? There have been a bunch of fixes
> > > > since 0.92.1:
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12310753&version=12319888
> > > >
> > > > St.Ack
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Todd Lipcon
> > > Software Engineer, Cloudera
> > >
> >
>
Re: 0.92.2?
Posted by Enis Söztutar <en...@apache.org>.
Shall we open a jira for investigating the performance issue, and mark it
as a blocker for 0.92.2?
Enis
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Elliott Clark <ec...@stumbleupon.com>wrote:
> I'm going to try and test 0.94.0 RC3 a little today. After that I can try
> and do some poking to see why 92 was so slow.
>
> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 10:09 AM, Todd Lipcon <to...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
> > Anyone looked into the apparent performance issue that Elliott reported
> > earlier this week? If we have a big perf regression from 0.90 we should
> > probably spend at least a few minutes looking into it.
> >
> > -Todd
> >
> > On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 8:58 AM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Should I put up a 0.92.2 candidate? There have been a bunch of fixes
> > > since 0.92.1:
> > >
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12310753&version=12319888
> > >
> > > St.Ack
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Todd Lipcon
> > Software Engineer, Cloudera
> >
>
Re: 0.92.2?
Posted by Elliott Clark <ec...@stumbleupon.com>.
I'm going to try and test 0.94.0 RC3 a little today. After that I can try
and do some poking to see why 92 was so slow.
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 10:09 AM, Todd Lipcon <to...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> Anyone looked into the apparent performance issue that Elliott reported
> earlier this week? If we have a big perf regression from 0.90 we should
> probably spend at least a few minutes looking into it.
>
> -Todd
>
> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 8:58 AM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
>
> > Should I put up a 0.92.2 candidate? There have been a bunch of fixes
> > since 0.92.1:
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12310753&version=12319888
> >
> > St.Ack
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Todd Lipcon
> Software Engineer, Cloudera
>
Re: 0.92.2?
Posted by Todd Lipcon <to...@cloudera.com>.
Anyone looked into the apparent performance issue that Elliott reported
earlier this week? If we have a big perf regression from 0.90 we should
probably spend at least a few minutes looking into it.
-Todd
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 8:58 AM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
> Should I put up a 0.92.2 candidate? There have been a bunch of fixes
> since 0.92.1:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12310753&version=12319888
>
> St.Ack
>
--
Todd Lipcon
Software Engineer, Cloudera