You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to user@hbase.apache.org by Krzysztof Szlapinski <kr...@starline.hk> on 2008/10/28 21:45:22 UTC
correct performance evaluation results?
hi
I've run the perormance evaluation test on a two machine cluster
hardware:
dual Xeon E5430 2.66 Ghz, 4GB RAM,
software:
OS - 64bit Ubuntu 8.04 Server
Java 1.6 - 64bit
Hadoop - 0.18.1
HBase - 0.18.0
Below are the results - the scan test result seems not real - could
someone please confirm that such result is credible
no of rows miliseconds rows/sec
sequential writes 2097140 408641 5 131,99
scan 2097140 40 52 428 500,00
random read 4194280 843962 4 969,75
krzysiek
RE: correct performance evaluation results?
Posted by "Ding, Hui" <hu...@sap.com>.
How much data do you have in the whole instance?
Did you have anything recently written (so that they are in memcache)?
Love to see more details.
Thx!
-----Original Message-----
From: Krzysztof Szlapinski [mailto:krzysztof.szlapinski@starline.hk]
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 3:11 PM
To: hbase-user@hadoop.apache.org
Subject: Re: correct performance evaluation results?
stack pisze:
> Yeah. Unless you got some magic going on in that Xeon of yours.
No magic noticed ;)
But 4 real - Any ideas why the scan test goes wrong? I got no warnings,
no errors, nothing suspicious in the log files. It starts and ends
within aprox. 40ms.
krzysiek
> St.Ack
>
>
> Krzysztof Szlapinski wrote:
>> stack pisze:
>>> Your math looks wrong.
>>> St.Ack
>>>
>> Hm, I double checked and it seems OK
>> Maybe the confuson is caused by the use of wrong decimal sparator in
>> my results (the Polish way ;) ). So once again its:
>> no of rows miliseconds
rows/sec
>> sequential writes 2097140 408641 ~5132
>> scan 2097140 40
>> ~52428500
>> random read 4194280 843962 ~4970
>>
>> scan results seems tooooooo good ;)
>>
>>>
>>> Krzysztof Szlapinski wrote:
>>>> hi
>>>> I've run the perormance evaluation test on a two machine cluster
>>>>
>>>> hardware:
>>>> dual Xeon E5430 2.66 Ghz, 4GB RAM,
>>>> software:
>>>> OS - 64bit Ubuntu 8.04 Server
>>>> Java 1.6 - 64bit
>>>> Hadoop - 0.18.1
>>>> HBase - 0.18.0
>>>>
>>>> Below are the results - the scan test result seems not real - could
>>>> someone please confirm that such result is credible
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> no of rows miliseconds rows/sec
>>>> sequential writes 2097140 408641 5 131,99
>>>> scan 2097140 40 52 428 500,00
>>>> random read 4194280 843962 4 969,75
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> krzysiek
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
Re: correct performance evaluation results?
Posted by Dru Jensen <dr...@gmail.com>.
Did your scan have a column specified that doesn't exist?
On Oct 28, 2008, at 3:10 PM, Krzysztof Szlapinski wrote:
> stack pisze:
>> Yeah. Unless you got some magic going on in that Xeon of yours.
> No magic noticed ;)
> But 4 real - Any ideas why the scan test goes wrong? I got no
> warnings, no errors, nothing suspicious in the log files. It starts
> and ends within aprox. 40ms.
>
> krzysiek
>
>> St.Ack
>>
>>
>> Krzysztof Szlapinski wrote:
>>> stack pisze:
>>>> Your math looks wrong.
>>>> St.Ack
>>>>
>>> Hm, I double checked and it seems OK
>>> Maybe the confuson is caused by the use of wrong decimal sparator
>>> in my results (the Polish way ;) ). So once again its:
>>> no of rows miliseconds rows/
>>> sec
>>> sequential writes 2097140 408641 ~5132
>>> scan 2097140 40
>>> ~52428500
>>> random read 4194280 843962 ~4970
>>>
>>> scan results seems tooooooo good ;)
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Krzysztof Szlapinski wrote:
>>>>> hi
>>>>> I've run the perormance evaluation test on a two machine cluster
>>>>>
>>>>> hardware:
>>>>> dual Xeon E5430 2.66 Ghz, 4GB RAM,
>>>>> software:
>>>>> OS - 64bit Ubuntu 8.04 Server
>>>>> Java 1.6 - 64bit
>>>>> Hadoop - 0.18.1
>>>>> HBase - 0.18.0
>>>>>
>>>>> Below are the results - the scan test result seems not real -
>>>>> could someone please confirm that such result is credible
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> no of rows miliseconds rows/sec
>>>>> sequential writes 2097140 408641 5 131,99
>>>>> scan 2097140 40 52 428 500,00
>>>>> random read 4194280 843962 4 969,75
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> krzysiek
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
Re: correct performance evaluation results?
Posted by Krzysztof Szlapinski <kr...@starline.hk>.
stack pisze:
> Yeah. Unless you got some magic going on in that Xeon of yours.
No magic noticed ;)
But 4 real - Any ideas why the scan test goes wrong? I got no warnings,
no errors, nothing suspicious in the log files. It starts and ends
within aprox. 40ms.
krzysiek
> St.Ack
>
>
> Krzysztof Szlapinski wrote:
>> stack pisze:
>>> Your math looks wrong.
>>> St.Ack
>>>
>> Hm, I double checked and it seems OK
>> Maybe the confuson is caused by the use of wrong decimal sparator in
>> my results (the Polish way ;) ). So once again its:
>> no of rows miliseconds rows/sec
>> sequential writes 2097140 408641 ~5132
>> scan 2097140 40
>> ~52428500
>> random read 4194280 843962 ~4970
>>
>> scan results seems tooooooo good ;)
>>
>>>
>>> Krzysztof Szlapinski wrote:
>>>> hi
>>>> I've run the perormance evaluation test on a two machine cluster
>>>>
>>>> hardware:
>>>> dual Xeon E5430 2.66 Ghz, 4GB RAM,
>>>> software:
>>>> OS - 64bit Ubuntu 8.04 Server
>>>> Java 1.6 - 64bit
>>>> Hadoop - 0.18.1
>>>> HBase - 0.18.0
>>>>
>>>> Below are the results - the scan test result seems not real - could
>>>> someone please confirm that such result is credible
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> no of rows miliseconds rows/sec
>>>> sequential writes 2097140 408641 5 131,99
>>>> scan 2097140 40 52 428 500,00
>>>> random read 4194280 843962 4 969,75
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> krzysiek
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
Re: correct performance evaluation results?
Posted by stack <st...@duboce.net>.
Yeah. Unless you got some magic going on in that Xeon of yours.
St.Ack
Krzysztof Szlapinski wrote:
> stack pisze:
>> Your math looks wrong.
>> St.Ack
>>
> Hm, I double checked and it seems OK
> Maybe the confuson is caused by the use of wrong decimal sparator in
> my results (the Polish way ;) ). So once again its:
> no of rows miliseconds rows/sec
> sequential writes 2097140 408641 ~5132
> scan 2097140 40 ~52428500
> random read 4194280 843962 ~4970
>
> scan results seems tooooooo good ;)
>
>>
>> Krzysztof Szlapinski wrote:
>>> hi
>>> I've run the perormance evaluation test on a two machine cluster
>>>
>>> hardware:
>>> dual Xeon E5430 2.66 Ghz, 4GB RAM,
>>> software:
>>> OS - 64bit Ubuntu 8.04 Server
>>> Java 1.6 - 64bit
>>> Hadoop - 0.18.1
>>> HBase - 0.18.0
>>>
>>> Below are the results - the scan test result seems not real - could
>>> someone please confirm that such result is credible
>>>
>>>
>>> no of rows miliseconds rows/sec
>>> sequential writes 2097140 408641 5 131,99
>>> scan 2097140 40 52 428 500,00
>>> random read 4194280 843962 4 969,75
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> krzysiek
>>>
>>
>>
>
Re: correct performance evaluation results?
Posted by Krzysztof Szlapinski <kr...@starline.hk>.
stack pisze:
> Your math looks wrong.
> St.Ack
>
Hm, I double checked and it seems OK
Maybe the confuson is caused by the use of wrong decimal sparator in my
results (the Polish way ;) ). So once again its:
no of rows miliseconds rows/sec
sequential writes 2097140 408641 ~5132
scan 2097140 40 ~52428500
random read 4194280 843962 ~4970
scan results seems tooooooo good ;)
>
> Krzysztof Szlapinski wrote:
>> hi
>> I've run the perormance evaluation test on a two machine cluster
>>
>> hardware:
>> dual Xeon E5430 2.66 Ghz, 4GB RAM,
>> software:
>> OS - 64bit Ubuntu 8.04 Server
>> Java 1.6 - 64bit
>> Hadoop - 0.18.1
>> HBase - 0.18.0
>>
>> Below are the results - the scan test result seems not real - could
>> someone please confirm that such result is credible
>>
>>
>> no of rows miliseconds rows/sec
>> sequential writes 2097140 408641 5 131,99
>> scan 2097140 40 52 428 500,00
>> random read 4194280 843962 4 969,75
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> krzysiek
>>
>
>
Re: correct performance evaluation results?
Posted by stack <st...@duboce.net>.
Your math looks wrong.
St.Ack
Krzysztof Szlapinski wrote:
> hi
> I've run the perormance evaluation test on a two machine cluster
>
> hardware:
> dual Xeon E5430 2.66 Ghz, 4GB RAM,
> software:
> OS - 64bit Ubuntu 8.04 Server
> Java 1.6 - 64bit
> Hadoop - 0.18.1
> HBase - 0.18.0
>
> Below are the results - the scan test result seems not real - could
> someone please confirm that such result is credible
>
>
> no of rows miliseconds rows/sec
> sequential writes 2097140 408641 5 131,99
> scan 2097140 40 52 428 500,00
> random read 4194280 843962 4 969,75
>
>
>
>
> krzysiek
>