From user-return-12029-apmail-hbase-user-archive=hbase.apache.org@hbase.apache.org Tue Aug 17 22:15:44 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-hbase-user-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 32963 invoked from network); 17 Aug 2010 22:15:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 17 Aug 2010 22:15:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 96401 invoked by uid 500); 17 Aug 2010 22:15:43 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-hbase-user-archive@hbase.apache.org Received: (qmail 96340 invoked by uid 500); 17 Aug 2010 22:15:42 -0000 Mailing-List: contact user-help@hbase.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: user@hbase.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list user@hbase.apache.org Received: (qmail 96332 invoked by uid 99); 17 Aug 2010 22:15:42 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 17 Aug 2010 22:15:42 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests=FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of jdcryans@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.51 as permitted sender) Received: from [74.125.82.51] (HELO mail-ww0-f51.google.com) (74.125.82.51) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 17 Aug 2010 22:15:19 +0000 Received: by wwi18 with SMTP id 18so322283wwi.20 for ; Tue, 17 Aug 2010 15:14:59 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:sender:received :in-reply-to:references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type; bh=YMZAbjHNlykGLc0eKo+3EBWQG5f2Q1j/95dS7RdOMcU=; b=wPBw8iAjUre5TXtbn7rIDukNaaxaOlPg5FXxOBr9HM1UL4MJBiiV3EEceed1TGfX9S FJkxLtVac5RJry37rdGdq5TU72Fs4KOWTNq5b/2Bctj04FSoe14eAVouYda6CAWoHUJj bkZ+RilTqvlkEJxlaqkGWgbqSlScKPj0KV/wM= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; b=dAzeGqc6usn5WnjhWolrAxZBMf61+mTJ+7tdnokMUQ1boS5YK1GkWQBZZHQzPXq4oH +GDIAFfs9pstM6niKT/XuZs72Lhwc+KeYSvuLLncvreFc0E90Va07N22dd1DXbCwaqIP DJJ1kV2m0MLKyEb/W83dosGSxhWipYw7EUnLI= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.53.74 with SMTP id f52mr6198390wec.112.1282083299247; Tue, 17 Aug 2010 15:14:59 -0700 (PDT) Sender: jdcryans@gmail.com Received: by 10.216.1.11 with HTTP; Tue, 17 Aug 2010 15:14:58 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 15:14:58 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 3orFA7a6EpUhLyjuewRmRWoUX5Q Message-ID: Subject: Re: High OS Load Numbers when idle From: Jean-Daniel Cryans To: user@hbase.apache.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org It's not normal, but then again I don't have access to your machines so I can only speculate. Does "top" show you which process is in %wa? If so and it's a java process, can you figure what's going on in there? J-D On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 11:03 AM, George Stathis wrote: > Hello, > > We have just setup a new cluster on EC2 using Hadoop 0.20.2 and HBase > 0.20.3. Our small setup as of right now consists of one master and four > slaves with a replication factor of 2: > > Master: xLarge instance with 2 CPUs and 17.5 GB RAM - runs 1 namenode, 1 > secondarynamenode, 1 jobtracker, 1 hbasemaster, 1 zookeeper (uses its' own > dedicated EMS drive) > Slaves: xLarge instance with 2 CPUs and 17.5 GB RAM each - run 1 datanode, 1 > tasktracker, 1 regionserver > > We have also installed Ganglia to monitor the cluster stats as we are about > to run some performance tests but, right out of the box, we are noticing > high system loads (especially on the master node) without any activity > happening on the clister. Of course, the CPUs are not being utilized at all, > but Ganglia is reporting almost all nodes in the red as the 1, 5 an 15 > minute load times are all above 100% most of the time (i.e. there are more > than two processes at a time competing for the 2 CPUs time). > > Question1: is this normal? > Question2: does it matter since each process barely uses any of the CPU > time? > > Thank you in advance and pardon the noob questions. > > -GS >