hbase PerformanceEvaluation benchmark - 0.94.2 VS 0.94.16 VS 0.96-优快云博客

本文链接：https://blog.youkuaiyun.com/leibnitz09/article/details/84540393

本文详细记录了HBase性能基准测试的过程，包括不同版本的HBase在写入和读取操作上的表现对比，强调了随机写入比顺序写入更快，并探讨了预分段在导入大量数据时的效率提升。同时，文章还提到了测试结果可能受到主机环境、JVM设置和网络的影响，并建议在比较不同版本时保持相同的测试条件。

摘要生成于 C知道，由 DeepSeek-R1 满血版支持，前往体验 >

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 :