hbase-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From lars hofhansl <la...@apache.org>
Subject Re: HBase read performance
Date Thu, 02 Oct 2014 16:48:10 GMT
Also you may be maxing out the network between the region server and your client - depending
on the size of the KVs.

What's the bandwidth you see used on both ends?
Are you running clients on multiple machines?

----- Original Message -----
From: lars hofhansl <larsh@apache.org>
To: "user@hbase.apache.org" <user@hbase.apache.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 2, 2014 9:40 AM
Subject: Re: HBase read performance

Hi Khaled,
is it the same with fewer threads? 1500 handler threads seems to be a lot. Typically a good
number of threads depends on the hardware (number of cores, number of spindles, etc). I cannot
think of any type of scenario where more than 100 would give any improvement.

How large is the payload per KV retrieved that way? If large (as in a few 100k) you definitely
want to lower the number of the handler threads.
How much heap do you give the region server? Does the working set fit into the cache? (i.e.
in the metrics, do you see the eviction count going up, if so it does not fit into the cache).

If the working set does not fit into the cache (eviction count goes up) then HBase will need
to bring a new block in from disk on each Get (assuming the Gets are more or less random as
far as the server is concerned).
In case you'll benefit from reducing the HFile block size (from 64k to 8k or even 4k).

Lastly I don't think we tested the performance of using reverse scan this way, there is probably
room to optimize this.
Can you restructure your keys to allow forwards scanning? For example you could store the
time as MAX_LONG-time. Or you could invert all the bits of the time portion of the key, so
that it sort the other way. Then you could do a forward scan.

Let us know how it goes.

-- Lars

----- Original Message -----
From: Khaled Elmeleegy <kdiaa@hotmail.com>
To: "user@hbase.apache.org" <user@hbase.apache.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 2, 2014 12:12 AM
Subject: HBase read performance


I am trying to do a scatter/gather on hbase (, where I have a client reading ~1000
keys from an HBase table. These keys happen to fall on the same region server. For my reads
I use reverse scan to read each key as I want the key prior to a specific time stamp (time
stamps are stored in reverse order). I don't believe gets can accomplish that, right? so I
use scan, with caching set to 1.

I use 2000 reader threads in the client and on HBase, I've set hbase.regionserver.handler.count
to 1500. With this setup, my scatter gather is very slow and can take up to 10s in total.
Timing an individual getScanner(..) call on the client side, it can easily take few hundreds
of ms. I also got the following metrics from the region server in question:

"queueCallTime_mean" : 2.190855525775637,
"queueCallTime_median" : 0.0,
"queueCallTime_75th_percentile" : 0.0,
"queueCallTime_95th_percentile" : 1.0,
"queueCallTime_99th_percentile" : 556.9799999999818,

"processCallTime_min" : 0,
"processCallTime_max" : 12755,
"processCallTime_mean" : 105.64873440912682,
"processCallTime_median" : 0.0,
"processCallTime_75th_percentile" : 2.0,
"processCallTime_95th_percentile" : 7917.95,
"processCallTime_99th_percentile" : 8876.89,

: 89,
: 11300,
: 654.4949739797315,
: 101.0,
: 101.0,
: 101.0,
: 113.0,

Where "delta" is the name of the table I am querying.

In addition to all this, i monitored the hardware resources (CPU, disk, and network) of both
the client and the region server and nothing seems anywhere near saturation. So I am puzzled
by what's going on and where this time is going.

Few things to note based on the above measurements: both medians of IPC processCallTime and
queueCallTime are basically zero (ms I presume, right?). However, scanNext_median is 101 (ms
too, right?). I am not sure how this adds up. Also, even though the 101 figure seems outrageously
high and I don't know why, still all these scans should be happening in parallel, so the overall
call should finish fast, given that no hardware resource is contended, right? but this is
not what's happening, so I have to be missing something(s). 

So, any help is appreciated there.


View raw message