hbase PerformanceEvaluation benchmark - 0.94.2 VS 0.94.16 VS 0.96

最新推荐文章于 2023-05-31 15:05:30 发布

leibnitz09

最新推荐文章于 2023-05-31 15:05:30 发布

阅读量132

点赞数

分类专栏： hbase TODO 文章标签：大数据

本文链接：https://blog.csdn.net/leibnitz09/article/details/84540393

版权

hbase 同时被 2 个专栏收录

34 篇文章 0 订阅

订阅专栏

TODO

3 篇文章 0 订阅

订阅专栏

i worked to benchmark hbase performance this weekend as i never used to do this befoer.after completion of these tasks,i found some good test methods and implied interesting.

some conclusions:

---- app level ---

a.hbase 94.2 is little faster then 94.16 in writing;but in the opposite in the read case(so maybe thies is the cause why the network bandwidh is more clear then the later,see downgrade hbase from 0.94.16 to 0.94.2 )

b.as knowned knowledge,random write should be faster then sequantial one,but in this casees,i used only one client in more types,so its not explict;and in read types,sequantial is mutch faster then random.

so in general environment,i think hbase will be represnted like below:

   random write > sequaltial write > sequentail read > random read

('>' is meant by throughput)

c.use presplit will be much faster than not when import huge data using multi-clients

d.cirtial two numbers are showed in figure.

e.the reuslt maybe affect by the host environment(hard/solft wares),jvm settings,network(if run in distributed cluster)

f.you MUST run the same conditions to compare both versions,else it is meanless.

g.using more data or more elapse time to run will be more correct in in theory.

----- host level ---

h.when running in mbp(ssd,maybe 800MB/sec at least),the io is not the bottle,so it will be much faster than common disks in linux.in case 1,it is 24 ms in mbp but 58 ms in linux,so i think the io cose in later will be think as :