hbase-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org>
Subject Re: HBase read performance
Date Wed, 08 Oct 2014 00:09:35 GMT
> The cluster has 2 m1.large nodes.

That's the problem right there.

You need to look at c3.4xlarge or i2 instances as a minimum requirement. M1
and even M3 instance types have ridiculously poor IO.


On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Khaled Elmeleegy <kdiaa@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks Nicolas, Qiang.
>
> I was able to write a simple program that reproduces the problem on a tiny
> HBase cluster on ec2. The cluster has 2 m1.large nodes. One node runs the
> master, name node and zookeeper. The other node runs a data node and a
> region server, with heap size configured to be 6GB. There, the 1000
> parallel reverse gets (reverse scans) take 7-8 seconds. The data set is
> tiny (10M records, each having a small number of bytes). As I said before,
> all hardware resources are very idle there.
>
> Interestingly, running the same workload on my macbook, the 1000 parallel
> gets take ~200ms on a pseudo-distributed installation.
>
> Any help to resolve this mystery is highly appreciated.
>
> P.S. please find my test program attached.
>
> Best,
> Khaled
>
> > From: nkeywal@gmail.com
> > Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2014 09:40:48 +0200
> > Subject: Re: HBase read performance
> > To: user@hbase.apache.org
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I haven't seen it mentioned, but if I understand correctly each scan
> > returns a single row? If so you should use Scan#setSmall to save some rpc
> > calls.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Nicolas
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 11:28 AM, Qiang Tian <tianq01@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > when using separate HConnection instance, both its
> > > RpcClient instance(maintain connection to a regionserver) and Registry
> > > instance(maintain connection to zookeeper) will be separate..
> > >
> > > see
> > >
> > >
> http://shammijayasinghe.blogspot.com/2012/02/zookeeper-increase-maximum-number-of.html
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 2:24 PM, Khaled Elmeleegy <kdiaa@hotmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I tried creating my own HConnections pool to use for my HBase calls,
> so
> > > > that not all the (2K) threads share the same HConnection. However, I
> > > could
> > > > only have 10 HConnections. Beyond that I get ZK exceptions, please
> find
> > > it
> > > > below. Also, with 10 HConnections, I don't see noticeable
> improvement in
> > > > performance so far.
> > > > 2014-10-05 06:11:26,490 WARN [main] zookeeper.RecoverableZooKeeper
> > > > (RecoverableZooKeeper.java:retryOrThrow(253)) - Possibly transient
> > > > ZooKeeper, quorum=54.68.206.252:2181,
> > > >
> exception=org.apache.zookeeper.KeeperException$ConnectionLossException:
> > > > KeeperErrorCode = ConnectionLoss for /hbase/hbaseid2014-10-05
> > > 06:11:26,490
> > > > INFO [main] util.RetryCounter
> > > (RetryCounter.java:sleepUntilNextRetry(155))
> > > > - Sleeping 1000ms before retry #0...2014-10-05 06:11:27,845 WARN
> [main]
> > > > zookeeper.RecoverableZooKeeper
> > > > (RecoverableZooKeeper.java:retryOrThrow(253)) - Possibly transient
> > > > ZooKeeper, quorum=54.68.206.252:2181,
> > > >
> exception=org.apache.zookeeper.KeeperException$ConnectionLossException:
> > > > KeeperErrorCode = ConnectionLoss for /hbase/hbaseid2014-10-05
> > > 06:11:27,849
> > > > INFO [main] util.RetryCounter
> > > (RetryCounter.java:sleepUntilNextRetry(155))
> > > > - Sleeping 2000ms before retry #1...2014-10-05 06:11:30,405 WARN
> [main]
> > > > zookeeper.RecoverableZooKeeper
> > > > (RecoverableZooKeeper.java:retryOrThrow(253)) - Possibly transient
> > > > ZooKeeper, quorum=54.68.206.252:2181,
> > > >
> exception=org.apache.zookeeper.KeeperException$ConnectionLossException:
> > > > KeeperErrorCode = ConnectionLoss for /hbase/hbaseid2014-10-05
> > > 06:11:30,405
> > > > INFO [main] util.RetryCounter
> > > (RetryCounter.java:sleepUntilNextRetry(155))
> > > > - Sleeping 4000ms before retry #2...2014-10-05 06:11:35,278 WARN
> [main]
> > > > zookeeper.RecoverableZooKeeper
> > > > (RecoverableZooKeeper.java:retryOrThrow(253)) - Possibly transient
> > > > ZooKeeper, quorum=54.68.206.252:2181,
> > > >
> exception=org.apache.zookeeper.KeeperException$ConnectionLossException:
> > > > KeeperErrorCode = ConnectionLoss for /hbase/hbaseid2014-10-05
> > > 06:11:35,279
> > > > INFO [main] util.RetryCounter
> > > (RetryCounter.java:sleepUntilNextRetry(155))
> > > > - Sleeping 8000ms before retry #3...2014-10-05 06:11:44,393 WARN
> [main]
> > > > zookeeper.RecoverableZooKeeper
> > > > (RecoverableZooKeeper.java:retryOrThrow(253)) - Possibly transient
> > > > ZooKeeper, quorum=54.68.206.252:2181,
> > > >
> exception=org.apache.zookeeper.KeeperException$ConnectionLossException:
> > > > KeeperErrorCode = ConnectionLoss for /hbase/hbaseid2014-10-05
> > > 06:11:44,393
> > > > ERROR [main] zookeeper.RecoverableZooKeeper
> > > > (RecoverableZooKeeper.java:retryOrThrow(255)) - ZooKeeper exists
> failed
> > > > after 4 attempts2014-10-05 06:11:44,394 WARN [main] zookeeper.ZKUtil
> > > > (ZKUtil.java:checkExists(482)) - hconnection-0x4e174f3b, quorum=
> > > > 54.68.206.252:2181, baseZNode=/hbase Unable to set watcher on znode
> > > >
> > >
> (/hbase/hbaseid)org.apache.zookeeper.KeeperException$ConnectionLossException:
> > > > KeeperErrorCode = ConnectionLoss for /hbase/hbaseid at
> > > > org.apache.zookeeper.KeeperException.create(KeeperException.java:99)
> at
> > > > org.apache.zookeeper.KeeperException.create(KeeperException.java:51)
> at
> > > > org.apache.zookeeper.ZooKeeper.exists(ZooKeeper.java:1041) at
> > > >
> > >
> org.apache.hadoop.hbase.zookeeper.RecoverableZooKeeper.exists(RecoverableZooKeeper.java:199)
> > > > at
> org.apache.hadoop.hbase.zookeeper.ZKUtil.checkExists(ZKUtil.java:479)
> > > > at
> > > >
> > >
> org.apache.hadoop.hbase.zookeeper.ZKClusterId.readClusterIdZNode(ZKClusterId.java:65)
> > > > at
> > > >
> > >
> org.apache.hadoop.hbase.client.ZooKeeperRegistry.getClusterId(ZooKeeperRegistry.java:83)
> > > > at
> > > >
> > >
> org.apache.hadoop.hbase.client.HConnectionManager$HConnectionImplementation.retrieveClusterId(HConnectionManager.java:857)
> > > > at
> > > >
> > >
> org.apache.hadoop.hbase.client.HConnectionManager$HConnectionImplementation.<init>(HConnectionManager.java:662)
> > > > at sun.reflect.NativeConstructorAccessorImpl.newInstance0(Native
> > > > Method) at
> > > >
> > >
> sun.reflect.NativeConstructorAccessorImpl.newInstance(NativeConstructorAccessorImpl.java:57)
> > > > at
> > > >
> > >
> sun.reflect.DelegatingConstructorAccessorImpl.newInstance(DelegatingConstructorAccessorImpl.java:45)
> > > > at java.lang.reflect.Constructor.newInstance(Constructor.java:526)
> > > at
> > > >
> > >
> org.apache.hadoop.hbase.client.HConnectionManager.createConnection(HConnectionManager.java:414)
> > > > at
> > > >
> > >
> org.apache.hadoop.hbase.client.HConnectionManager.createConnection(HConnectionManager.java:335)...
> > > > > From: kdiaa@hotmail.com
> > > > > To: user@hbase.apache.org
> > > > > Subject: RE: HBase read performance
> > > > > Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2014 12:37:39 -0700
> > > > >
> > > > > Lars, Ted, and Qiang,
> > > > > Thanks for all the input.
> > > > > Qiang: yes all the threads are in the same client process sharing
> the
> > > > same connection. And since I don't see hardware contention, may be
> there
> > > is
> > > > contention over this code path. I'll try using many connections and
> see
> > > if
> > > > it alleviates the problems and I'll report back.
> > > > > Thanks again,Khaled
> > > > >
> > > > > > Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2014 15:18:30 +0800
> > > > > > Subject: Re: HBase read performance
> > > > > > From: tianq01@gmail.com
> > > > > > To: user@hbase.apache.org
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regarding to profiling, Andrew introduced
> > > > > >
> http://www.brendangregg.com/blog/2014-06-12/java-flame-graphs.html
> > > > months
> > > > > > ago.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > processCallTime comes from RpcServer#call, so it looks good?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have a suspect:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-11306
> > > > > >
> > > > > > how many processes do you have for your 2000 threads?
> > > > > > if olny 1 process, those threads will share just 1 connection
to
> that
> > > > > > regionserver, there might be big contention on the RPC code
path.
> > > > ---for
> > > > > > such case, could you try using different connections?
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> https://hbase.apache.org/apidocs/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/client/HConnectionManager.html
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 9:55 AM, Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Khaled:
> > > > > > > Do you have profiler such as jprofiler ?
> > > > > > > Profiling would give us more hint.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Otherwise capturing stack trace during the period of reverse
> scan
> > > > would
> > > > > > > help.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Cheers
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 4:52 PM, lars hofhansl <
> larsh@apache.org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You might have the data in the OS buffer cache, without
short
> > > > circuit
> > > > > > > > reading the region server has to request the block
from the
> data
> > > > node
> > > > > > > > process, which then reads it from the block cache.
> > > > > > > > That is a few context switches per RPC that do not
show up
> in CPU
> > > > > > > metrics.
> > > > > > > > In that you also would not see disk IO.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If - as you say - you see a lot of evicted blocks
the data
> *has*
> > > > to come
> > > > > > > > from the OS. If you do not see disk IO is *has* to
come from
> the
> > > OS
> > > > > > > cache.
> > > > > > > > I.e. there's more RAM on your boxes, and you should
increase
> the
> > > > heap
> > > > > > > block
> > > > > > > > cache.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You can measure the context switches with vmstat.
Other than
> that
> > > > I have
> > > > > > > > no suggestion until I reproduce the problem.
> > > > > > > > Also check the data locality index of the region server
it
> should
> > > > be
> > > > > > > close
> > > > > > > > to 100%.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -- Lars
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > From: Khaled Elmeleegy <kdiaa@hotmail.com>
> > > > > > > > To: "user@hbase.apache.org" <user@hbase.apache.org>
> > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, October 2, 2014 3:24 PM
> > > > > > > > Subject: RE: HBase read performance
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Lars thanks a lot about all the tips. I'll make sure
I cover
> all
> > > > of them
> > > > > > > > and get back to you. I am not sure they are the bottleneck
> though
> > > > as they
> > > > > > > > all are about optimizing physical resource usage.
As I said,
> I
> > > > don't see
> > > > > > > > any contended physical resources now. I'll also try
to
> reproduce
> > > > this
> > > > > > > > problem in a simpler environment and pass to you the
test
> program
> > > > to play
> > > > > > > > with.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Couple of high level points to make. You are right
that my
> use
> > > > case is
> > > > > > > > kind of a worst case for HBase reads. But, if things
go the
> way
> > > you
> > > > > > > > described them, there should be tons of disk IO and
that
> should
> > > be
> > > > > > > clearly
> > > > > > > > the bottleneck. This is not the case though. That's
for the
> > > simple
> > > > reason
> > > > > > > > that this is done in a test environment (I am still
> prototyping),
> > > > and
> > > > > > > not a
> > > > > > > > lot of data is yet written to HBase. However for the
real use
> > > > case, there
> > > > > > > > should writers constantly writing data to HBase and
readers
> > > > occasionally
> > > > > > > > doing this scatter/gather. At steady state, things
should
> only
> > > get
> > > > worse
> > > > > > > > and all the issues you mentioned should get far more
> pronounced.
> > > > At this
> > > > > > > > point, one can try to mitigate it using more memory
or so. I
> am
> > > > not there
> > > > > > > > yet as I think I am hitting some software bottleneck,
which I
> > > > don't know
> > > > > > > > how to work around.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Khaled
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ----------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2014 14:20:47 -0700
> > > > > > > > > From: larsh@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: HBase read performance
> > > > > > > > > To: user@hbase.apache.org
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > OK... We might need to investigate this.
> > > > > > > > > Any chance that you can provide a minimal test
program and
> > > > instruction
> > > > > > > > about how to set it up.
> > > > > > > > > We can do some profiling then.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > One thing to note is that with scanning HBase
cannot use
> bloom
> > > > filters
> > > > > > > > to rule out HFiles ahead of time, it needs to look
into all
> of
> > > > them.
> > > > > > > > > So you kind of hit on the absolute worst case:
> > > > > > > > > - random reads that do not fit into the block
cache
> > > > > > > > > - cannot use bloom filters
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Few more question/comments:
> > > > > > > > > - Do you have short circuit reading enabled?
If not, you
> > > should.
> > > > > > > > > - Is your table major compacted? That will reduce
the
> number of
> > > > files
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > look at.
> > > > > > > > > - Did you disable Nagle's everywhere (enabled
tcpnodelay)?
> It
> > > > disabled
> > > > > > > > by default in HBase, but necessarily in your install
of HDFS.
> > > > > > > > > - Which version of HDFS are you using as backing
> filesystem?
> > > > > > > > > - If your disk is idle, it means the data fits
into the OS
> > > buffer
> > > > > > > cache.
> > > > > > > > In turn that means that you increase the heap for
the region
> > > > servers. You
> > > > > > > > can also use block encoding (FAST_DIFF) to try to
make sure
> the
> > > > entire
> > > > > > > > working set fits into the cache.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > - Also try to reduce the block size - although
if your
> overall
> > > > working
> > > > > > > > set does not fit in the heap it won't help much.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > This is a good section of the book to read through
> generally
> > > > (even
> > > > > > > > though you might know most of this already):
> > > > > > > > http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#perf.configurations
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > -- Lars
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > > From: Khaled Elmeleegy <kdiaa@hotmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > To: "user@hbase.apache.org" <user@hbase.apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > Cc:
> > > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, October 2, 2014 11:27 AM
> > > > > > > > > Subject: RE: HBase read performance
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I do see a very brief spike in CPU (user/system),
but it's
> no
> > > > where
> > > > > > > near
> > > > > > > > 0% idle. It goes from 99% idle down to something like
40%
> idle
> > > for
> > > > a
> > > > > > > second
> > > > > > > > or so. The thing to note, this is all on a test cluster,
so
> no
> > > > real load.
> > > > > > > > Things are generally idle until i issue 2-3 of these
> > > > multi-scan-requests
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > render a web page. Then, you see the spike in the
cpu and
> some
> > > > activity
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > the network and disk, but nowhere near saturation.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > If there are specific tests you'd like me to
do to debug
> this,
> > > > I'd be
> > > > > > > > more than happy to do it.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Khaled
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ----------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > >> Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2014 11:15:59 -0700
> > > > > > > > >> From: larsh@apache.org
> > > > > > > > >> Subject: Re: HBase read performance
> > > > > > > > >> To: user@hbase.apache.org
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> I still think you're waiting on disk. No
IOWAIT? So CPU
> is not
> > > > waiting
> > > > > > > > a lot for IO. No high User/System CPU either?
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> If you see a lot of evicted block then each
RPC has a high
> > > > chance of
> > > > > > > > requiring to bring an entire 64k block in. You'll
see bad
> > > > performance
> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > this.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> We might need to trace this specific scenario.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> -- Lars
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> ________________________________
> > > > > > > > >> From: Khaled Elmeleegy <kdiaa@hotmail.com>
> > > > > > > > >> To: "user@hbase.apache.org" <user@hbase.apache.org>
> > > > > > > > >> Sent: Thursday, October 2, 2014 10:46 AM
> > > > > > > > >> Subject: RE: HBase read performance
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> I've set the heap size to 6GB and I do have
gc logging. No
> > > long
> > > > pauses
> > > > > > > > there -- occasional 0.1s or 0.2s.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> Other than the discrepancy between what's
reported on the
> > > > client and
> > > > > > > > what's reported at the RS, there is also the issue
of not
> getting
> > > > proper
> > > > > > > > concurrency. So, even if a reverse get takes 100ms
or so
> (this
> > > has
> > > > to be
> > > > > > > > mostly blocking on various things as no physical resource
is
> > > > contended),
> > > > > > > > then the other gets/scans should be able to proceed
in
> parallel,
> > > > so a
> > > > > > > > thousand concurrent gets/scans should finish in few
hundreds
> of
> > > ms
> > > > not
> > > > > > > many
> > > > > > > > seconds. That's why I thought I'd increase the handlers
> count to
> > > > try to
> > > > > > > get
> > > > > > > > more concurrency, but it didn't help. So, there must
be
> something
> > > > else.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> Khaled
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> ----------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > >>> From: ndimiduk@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > >>> Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2014 10:36:39 -0700
> > > > > > > > >>> Subject: Re: HBase read performance
> > > > > > > > >>> To: user@hbase.apache.org
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>> Do check again on the heap size of the
region servers.
> The
> > > > default
> > > > > > > > >>> unconfigured size is 1G; too small for
much of anything.
> > > Check
> > > > your
> > > > > > > RS
> > > > > > > > logs
> > > > > > > > >>> -- look for lines produced by the JVMPauseMonitor
thread.
> > > They
> > > > > > > usually
> > > > > > > > >>> correlate with long GC pauses or other
process-freeze
> events.
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>> Get is implemented as a Scan of a single
row, so a
> reverse
> > > > scan of a
> > > > > > > > single
> > > > > > > > >>> row should be functionally equivalent.
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>> In practice, I have seen discrepancy
between the
> latencies
> > > > reported
> > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >>> RS and the latencies experienced by the
client. I've not
> > > > investigated
> > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > >>> area thoroughly.
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>> On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 10:05 AM, Khaled
Elmeleegy <
> > > > kdiaa@hotmail.com
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>>> Thanks Lars for your quick reply.
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>> Yes performance is similar with less
handlers (I tried
> with
> > > > 100
> > > > > > > > first).
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>> The payload is not big ~1KB or so.
The working set
> doesn't
> > > > seem to
> > > > > > > > fit in
> > > > > > > > >>>> memory as there are many cache misses.
However, disk is
> far
> > > > from
> > > > > > > > being a
> > > > > > > > >>>> bottleneck. I checked using iostat.
I also verified that
> > > > neither the
> > > > > > > > >>>> network nor the CPU of the region
server or the client
> are a
> > > > > > > > bottleneck.
> > > > > > > > >>>> This leads me to believe that likely
this is a software
> > > > bottleneck,
> > > > > > > > >>>> possibly due to a misconfiguration
on my side. I just
> don't
> > > > know how
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >>>> debug it. A clear disconnect I see
is the individual
> request
> > > > latency
> > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > >>>> reported by metrics on the region
server (IPC
> > > processCallTime
> > > > vs
> > > > > > > > scanNext)
> > > > > > > > >>>> vs what's measured on the client.
Does this sound
> right? Any
> > > > ideas
> > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > how
> > > > > > > > >>>> to better debug it?
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>> About this trick with the timestamps
to be able to do a
> > > > forward
> > > > > > > scan,
> > > > > > > > >>>> thanks for pointing it out. Actually,
I am aware of it.
> The
> > > > problem
> > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > >>>> is, sometimes I want to get the key
after a particular
> > > > timestamp and
> > > > > > > > >>>> sometimes I want to get the key before,
so just relying
> on
> > > > the key
> > > > > > > > order
> > > > > > > > >>>> doesn't work. Ideally, I want a reverse
get(). I thought
> > > > reverse
> > > > > > > scan
> > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > >>>> do the trick though.
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>> Khaled
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>> ----------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > >>>>> Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2014 09:40:37
-0700
> > > > > > > > >>>>> From: larsh@apache.org
> > > > > > > > >>>>> Subject: Re: HBase read performance
> > > > > > > > >>>>> To: user@hbase.apache.org
> > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>> 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>
> > > > > > > > >>>>> Cc:
> > > > > > > > >>>>> Sent: Thursday, October 2, 2014
12:12 AM
> > > > > > > > >>>>> Subject: HBase read performance
> > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>> Hi,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>> I am trying to do a scatter/gather
on hbase (0.98.6.1),
> > > > 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,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> "namespace_default_table_delta_region_87be70d7710f95c05cfcc90181d183b4_metric_scanNext_min"
> > > > > > > > >>>> : 89,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> "namespace_default_table_delta_region_87be70d7710f95c05cfcc90181d183b4_metric_scanNext_max"
> > > > > > > > >>>> : 11300,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> "namespace_default_table_delta_region_87be70d7710f95c05cfcc90181d183b4_metric_scanNext_mean"
> > > > > > > > >>>> : 654.4949739797315,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> "namespace_default_table_delta_region_87be70d7710f95c05cfcc90181d183b4_metric_scanNext_median"
> > > > > > > > >>>> : 101.0,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> "namespace_default_table_delta_region_87be70d7710f95c05cfcc90181d183b4_metric_scanNext_75th_percentile"
> > > > > > > > >>>> : 101.0,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> "namespace_default_table_delta_region_87be70d7710f95c05cfcc90181d183b4_metric_scanNext_95th_percentile"
> > > > > > > > >>>> : 101.0,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> "namespace_default_table_delta_region_87be70d7710f95c05cfcc90181d183b4_metric_scanNext_99th_percentile"
> > > > > > > > >>>> : 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.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>> Thanks,
> > > > > > > > >>>>> Khaled
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
>



-- 
Best regards,

   - Andy

Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
(via Tom White)

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message