Re: [math] Multithreaded performances
I did take a look at sirona, and it looks really nice. Whats the best way to contribute to it? Any open issues you would like to work somebody on? Thomas On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 5:38 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau rmannibu...@gmail.comwrote: yep but this is not enough, almost each component is doing n++. This is fast but since done under a lock if it can be removed it should. Romain Manni-Bucau Twitter: @rmannibucau Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau 2013/11/20 Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com: On 11/20/13, 7:26 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: next version (rewrite/fork): https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/sirona/trunk/core/src/main/java/org/apache/sirona/counters/OptimizedStatistics.java was easier to centralize everything in a single class That is exactly what I meant about the moment statistics. They can share state. The problem is this approach eliminates the pluggability and also cuts out the other stats. We can probably have it both ways by allowing you to turn off stuff you don't want and just having the moment stats share state. Phil Romain Manni-Bucau Twitter: @rmannibucau Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau 2013/11/20 Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com: On 11/20/13, 12:43 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: Hi A quick mail to give some feedbacks of my tests. I started to hack a bit to get rid of not used stats by sirona, typically I do ATM: setSumsqImpl(NoopStat.INSTANCE); setSumLogImpl(NoopStat.INSTANCE); setGeoMeanImpl(NoopStat.INSTANCE); (NoopStat is a mock of StorelessUnivariateStatistic doijg nothing) Another point which could be improoved is the duplication of info accross sub StorelessUnivariateStatistic (typically n computed several times for instance). Good point. Its kind of funny that simplest way to solve the problem you mention at the end is to remove the flexibility that you use in the beginning - i.e., to no longer use separate stats instances to compute the bundled statistics. The setup is the way it is precisely so that you can plug in alternative impls. I had never thought of no-op-ing instances to suppress things, but it does work. Having stats share state data is a little tricky but in theory possible. The moment stats at least are set up to support this. Patches are welcome. If you don't mind opening a JIRA to suggest eliminating repeated computations that would be great. Phil Romain Manni-Bucau Twitter: @rmannibucau Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau 2013/11/6 Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com: On 11/6/13 9:05 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: Great! Btw not sure for sirona we oculd use it. One constraint on sirona-core is to stay self contained. We already shade math3 so shading pool2 too would start to create a big jar for this need. I'll try to bench deeper next week too. OK - and any ideas you have about how to implement something lightweight inside [math] much appreciated. Phil Romain Manni-Bucau Twitter: @rmannibucau Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau 2013/11/6 Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com: On 11/6/13 8:47 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: well pool are based on locks so I'm not sure (it would need deep benchs on a real app) it does worth it Commons pool2 uses pretty lightweight locking and using a pool of instances achieves the basic objective of reducing contention for the single sync lock on one SummaryStatistics object. I bet it would improve throughput over the single-instance approach if maxActive, maxIdle were tuned. If I get some time to play with this, I will report back with some benchmarks. Phil Romain Manni-Bucau Twitter: @rmannibucau Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau 2013/11/6 Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com: On 11/5/13 11:26 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: Hehe, right. I looked a bit more today and LongAdder is only a part of the solution. The stat computation still needs to lock to get acces to previous values (N - N+1). Basically the gain wouldn't be as important as I thought :(. Right, but I think your original idea of maintaining a pool of instances (fewer that one per thread) to be periodically aggregated is a good one. See below. As I said before we'll wait a bit to gather feedbacks, if it blocks I'll come back trying to find + propose a solution. Thanks in all cases for your answers! A workaround that I have started
Re: [math] Multithreaded performances
Hi first maybe the thread should move over sirona list (I wouldn't bother commons ;)): http://sirona.incubator.apache.org/mail-lists.html about hot topics I think we have: 1) Gui enhancement (a jira is about using another js library to draw graphes and get an analysis/correlation view, another topic is the GUI configuration: how to make dashboard etc...) 2) Storage backends (we support mainly cassandra and in memory ATM but a rotating JDBC impl could be great too) 3) Alerting is not yet done and needs to be in final versions 4) Agent/Plugins enhancement (we have a few today) 5) Surely a better configuration 6) Counter implementation with less locks (even if thanks to the stat impl we use we reduced the lock duration we still rely too much on lock IMO and I'm sure we can do better). 7) etc.. ;) It is a new project so all help is welcomed! PS: we have an IRC channel on freenode: #apache-sirona Romain Manni-Bucau Twitter: @rmannibucau Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau 2013/11/21 Thomas Neidhart thomas.neidh...@gmail.com: I did take a look at sirona, and it looks really nice. Whats the best way to contribute to it? Any open issues you would like to work somebody on? Thomas On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 5:38 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau rmannibu...@gmail.comwrote: yep but this is not enough, almost each component is doing n++. This is fast but since done under a lock if it can be removed it should. Romain Manni-Bucau Twitter: @rmannibucau Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau 2013/11/20 Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com: On 11/20/13, 7:26 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: next version (rewrite/fork): https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/sirona/trunk/core/src/main/java/org/apache/sirona/counters/OptimizedStatistics.java was easier to centralize everything in a single class That is exactly what I meant about the moment statistics. They can share state. The problem is this approach eliminates the pluggability and also cuts out the other stats. We can probably have it both ways by allowing you to turn off stuff you don't want and just having the moment stats share state. Phil Romain Manni-Bucau Twitter: @rmannibucau Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau 2013/11/20 Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com: On 11/20/13, 12:43 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: Hi A quick mail to give some feedbacks of my tests. I started to hack a bit to get rid of not used stats by sirona, typically I do ATM: setSumsqImpl(NoopStat.INSTANCE); setSumLogImpl(NoopStat.INSTANCE); setGeoMeanImpl(NoopStat.INSTANCE); (NoopStat is a mock of StorelessUnivariateStatistic doijg nothing) Another point which could be improoved is the duplication of info accross sub StorelessUnivariateStatistic (typically n computed several times for instance). Good point. Its kind of funny that simplest way to solve the problem you mention at the end is to remove the flexibility that you use in the beginning - i.e., to no longer use separate stats instances to compute the bundled statistics. The setup is the way it is precisely so that you can plug in alternative impls. I had never thought of no-op-ing instances to suppress things, but it does work. Having stats share state data is a little tricky but in theory possible. The moment stats at least are set up to support this. Patches are welcome. If you don't mind opening a JIRA to suggest eliminating repeated computations that would be great. Phil Romain Manni-Bucau Twitter: @rmannibucau Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau 2013/11/6 Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com: On 11/6/13 9:05 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: Great! Btw not sure for sirona we oculd use it. One constraint on sirona-core is to stay self contained. We already shade math3 so shading pool2 too would start to create a big jar for this need. I'll try to bench deeper next week too. OK - and any ideas you have about how to implement something lightweight inside [math] much appreciated. Phil Romain Manni-Bucau Twitter: @rmannibucau Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau 2013/11/6 Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com: On 11/6/13 8:47 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: well pool are based on locks so I'm not sure (it would need deep benchs on a real app) it does worth it Commons pool2 uses pretty lightweight locking and using a pool of instances achieves the basic objective of reducing contention for the
Re: [math] Multithreaded performances
On 11/21/2013 11:14 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: Hi first maybe the thread should move over sirona list (I wouldn't bother commons ;)): http://sirona.incubator.apache.org/mail-lists.html about hot topics I think we have: 1) Gui enhancement (a jira is about using another js library to draw graphes and get an analysis/correlation view, another topic is the GUI configuration: how to make dashboard etc...) 2) Storage backends (we support mainly cassandra and in memory ATM but a rotating JDBC impl could be great too) 3) Alerting is not yet done and needs to be in final versions 4) Agent/Plugins enhancement (we have a few today) 5) Surely a better configuration 6) Counter implementation with less locks (even if thanks to the stat impl we use we reduced the lock duration we still rely too much on lock IMO and I'm sure we can do better). 7) etc.. ;) It is a new project so all help is welcomed! Hi Romain, thanks for the pointers, I will take a closer look, some of them would really be interesting to work on. Thanks, Thomas PS: we have an IRC channel on freenode: #apache-sirona Romain Manni-Bucau Twitter: @rmannibucau Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau 2013/11/21 Thomas Neidhart thomas.neidh...@gmail.com: I did take a look at sirona, and it looks really nice. Whats the best way to contribute to it? Any open issues you would like to work somebody on? Thomas On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 5:38 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau rmannibu...@gmail.comwrote: yep but this is not enough, almost each component is doing n++. This is fast but since done under a lock if it can be removed it should. Romain Manni-Bucau Twitter: @rmannibucau Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau 2013/11/20 Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com: On 11/20/13, 7:26 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: next version (rewrite/fork): https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/sirona/trunk/core/src/main/java/org/apache/sirona/counters/OptimizedStatistics.java was easier to centralize everything in a single class That is exactly what I meant about the moment statistics. They can share state. The problem is this approach eliminates the pluggability and also cuts out the other stats. We can probably have it both ways by allowing you to turn off stuff you don't want and just having the moment stats share state. Phil Romain Manni-Bucau Twitter: @rmannibucau Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau 2013/11/20 Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com: On 11/20/13, 12:43 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: Hi A quick mail to give some feedbacks of my tests. I started to hack a bit to get rid of not used stats by sirona, typically I do ATM: setSumsqImpl(NoopStat.INSTANCE); setSumLogImpl(NoopStat.INSTANCE); setGeoMeanImpl(NoopStat.INSTANCE); (NoopStat is a mock of StorelessUnivariateStatistic doijg nothing) Another point which could be improoved is the duplication of info accross sub StorelessUnivariateStatistic (typically n computed several times for instance). Good point. Its kind of funny that simplest way to solve the problem you mention at the end is to remove the flexibility that you use in the beginning - i.e., to no longer use separate stats instances to compute the bundled statistics. The setup is the way it is precisely so that you can plug in alternative impls. I had never thought of no-op-ing instances to suppress things, but it does work. Having stats share state data is a little tricky but in theory possible. The moment stats at least are set up to support this. Patches are welcome. If you don't mind opening a JIRA to suggest eliminating repeated computations that would be great. Phil Romain Manni-Bucau Twitter: @rmannibucau Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau 2013/11/6 Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com: On 11/6/13 9:05 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: Great! Btw not sure for sirona we oculd use it. One constraint on sirona-core is to stay self contained. We already shade math3 so shading pool2 too would start to create a big jar for this need. I'll try to bench deeper next week too. OK - and any ideas you have about how to implement something lightweight inside [math] much appreciated. Phil Romain Manni-Bucau Twitter: @rmannibucau Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau 2013/11/6 Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com: On 11/6/13 8:47 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: well pool are based on locks so I'm not sure (it would need deep benchs on a real app) it does worth it
Re: [math] Multithreaded performances
Hi A quick mail to give some feedbacks of my tests. I started to hack a bit to get rid of not used stats by sirona, typically I do ATM: setSumsqImpl(NoopStat.INSTANCE); setSumLogImpl(NoopStat.INSTANCE); setGeoMeanImpl(NoopStat.INSTANCE); (NoopStat is a mock of StorelessUnivariateStatistic doijg nothing) Another point which could be improoved is the duplication of info accross sub StorelessUnivariateStatistic (typically n computed several times for instance). Romain Manni-Bucau Twitter: @rmannibucau Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau 2013/11/6 Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com: On 11/6/13 9:05 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: Great! Btw not sure for sirona we oculd use it. One constraint on sirona-core is to stay self contained. We already shade math3 so shading pool2 too would start to create a big jar for this need. I'll try to bench deeper next week too. OK - and any ideas you have about how to implement something lightweight inside [math] much appreciated. Phil Romain Manni-Bucau Twitter: @rmannibucau Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau 2013/11/6 Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com: On 11/6/13 8:47 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: well pool are based on locks so I'm not sure (it would need deep benchs on a real app) it does worth it Commons pool2 uses pretty lightweight locking and using a pool of instances achieves the basic objective of reducing contention for the single sync lock on one SummaryStatistics object. I bet it would improve throughput over the single-instance approach if maxActive, maxIdle were tuned. If I get some time to play with this, I will report back with some benchmarks. Phil Romain Manni-Bucau Twitter: @rmannibucau Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau 2013/11/6 Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com: On 11/5/13 11:26 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: Hehe, right. I looked a bit more today and LongAdder is only a part of the solution. The stat computation still needs to lock to get acces to previous values (N - N+1). Basically the gain wouldn't be as important as I thought :(. Right, but I think your original idea of maintaining a pool of instances (fewer that one per thread) to be periodically aggregated is a good one. See below. As I said before we'll wait a bit to gather feedbacks, if it blocks I'll come back trying to find + propose a solution. Thanks in all cases for your answers! A workaround that I have started playing with (partly for other benchmarking reasons) might be to actually use a pool for the stats objects that the monitoring threads use. Using a pool would allow you to monitor and tune the parameters. We now have (well, once the VOTE in progress completes :) a decently performing pool implementation. The tricky bit is locking the instances during aggregation. One way to handle this would be to have the factory's passivate method and the aggregation thread contend for locks on the pooled stats instances. The only contention would be when aggregation is copying individual instances and contention would be with at most one client thread (waiting to proceed in passivate). Phil Romain Manni-Bucau Twitter: @rmannibucau Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau 2013/11/5 Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com: On 11/5/13 9:57 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: @Phil: hmm can be but the framework would create its own overhead which would be avoided with a dedicated solution, no? Well thought gain was great for small investment but ok to postpone it As I said, patches welcome. Go for it. My point about the framework was that when you actually get this implemented inside, e.g. SummaryStatistics, you will have built a mini-framework. Whatever overhead it has, it will have ;) Phil Le 5 nov. 2013 18:54, Romain Manni-Bucau rmannibu...@gmail.com a écrit : Well I didnt test sirona in prod but when using jamon (same kind of framework) locks were creating a serious overhead on some benches. Not the most important but enough to try to solve it. That said we are not yet in 1.0 so Im ok to wait for more serious feedbacks if you think it is better Le 5 nov. 2013 18:48, Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@gmail.com a écrit : On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 10:09 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau rmannibu...@gmail.comwrote: Oh sorry, that's what I said early, in a real app no or not enough to be an issue buy on simple apps or very high thrououtput apps yes. Le 5 nov. 2013 07:00, Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@gmail.com a écrit : That isn't what I meant. Do you really think that more than one metric has to update (increment, say) at
Re: [math] Multithreaded performances
On 11/20/13, 12:43 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: Hi A quick mail to give some feedbacks of my tests. I started to hack a bit to get rid of not used stats by sirona, typically I do ATM: setSumsqImpl(NoopStat.INSTANCE); setSumLogImpl(NoopStat.INSTANCE); setGeoMeanImpl(NoopStat.INSTANCE); (NoopStat is a mock of StorelessUnivariateStatistic doijg nothing) Another point which could be improoved is the duplication of info accross sub StorelessUnivariateStatistic (typically n computed several times for instance). Good point. Its kind of funny that simplest way to solve the problem you mention at the end is to remove the flexibility that you use in the beginning - i.e., to no longer use separate stats instances to compute the bundled statistics. The setup is the way it is precisely so that you can plug in alternative impls. I had never thought of no-op-ing instances to suppress things, but it does work. Having stats share state data is a little tricky but in theory possible. The moment stats at least are set up to support this. Patches are welcome. If you don't mind opening a JIRA to suggest eliminating repeated computations that would be great. Phil Romain Manni-Bucau Twitter: @rmannibucau Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau 2013/11/6 Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com: On 11/6/13 9:05 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: Great! Btw not sure for sirona we oculd use it. One constraint on sirona-core is to stay self contained. We already shade math3 so shading pool2 too would start to create a big jar for this need. I'll try to bench deeper next week too. OK - and any ideas you have about how to implement something lightweight inside [math] much appreciated. Phil Romain Manni-Bucau Twitter: @rmannibucau Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau 2013/11/6 Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com: On 11/6/13 8:47 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: well pool are based on locks so I'm not sure (it would need deep benchs on a real app) it does worth it Commons pool2 uses pretty lightweight locking and using a pool of instances achieves the basic objective of reducing contention for the single sync lock on one SummaryStatistics object. I bet it would improve throughput over the single-instance approach if maxActive, maxIdle were tuned. If I get some time to play with this, I will report back with some benchmarks. Phil Romain Manni-Bucau Twitter: @rmannibucau Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau 2013/11/6 Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com: On 11/5/13 11:26 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: Hehe, right. I looked a bit more today and LongAdder is only a part of the solution. The stat computation still needs to lock to get acces to previous values (N - N+1). Basically the gain wouldn't be as important as I thought :(. Right, but I think your original idea of maintaining a pool of instances (fewer that one per thread) to be periodically aggregated is a good one. See below. As I said before we'll wait a bit to gather feedbacks, if it blocks I'll come back trying to find + propose a solution. Thanks in all cases for your answers! A workaround that I have started playing with (partly for other benchmarking reasons) might be to actually use a pool for the stats objects that the monitoring threads use. Using a pool would allow you to monitor and tune the parameters. We now have (well, once the VOTE in progress completes :) a decently performing pool implementation. The tricky bit is locking the instances during aggregation. One way to handle this would be to have the factory's passivate method and the aggregation thread contend for locks on the pooled stats instances. The only contention would be when aggregation is copying individual instances and contention would be with at most one client thread (waiting to proceed in passivate). Phil Romain Manni-Bucau Twitter: @rmannibucau Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau 2013/11/5 Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com: On 11/5/13 9:57 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: @Phil: hmm can be but the framework would create its own overhead which would be avoided with a dedicated solution, no? Well thought gain was great for small investment but ok to postpone it As I said, patches welcome. Go for it. My point about the framework was that when you actually get this implemented inside, e.g. SummaryStatistics, you will have built a mini-framework. Whatever overhead it has, it will have ;) Phil Le 5 nov. 2013 18:54, Romain Manni-Bucau rmannibu...@gmail.com a écrit : Well I didnt test sirona in prod but when using
Re: [math] Multithreaded performances
next version (rewrite/fork): https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/sirona/trunk/core/src/main/java/org/apache/sirona/counters/OptimizedStatistics.java was easier to centralize everything in a single class Romain Manni-Bucau Twitter: @rmannibucau Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau 2013/11/20 Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com: On 11/20/13, 12:43 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: Hi A quick mail to give some feedbacks of my tests. I started to hack a bit to get rid of not used stats by sirona, typically I do ATM: setSumsqImpl(NoopStat.INSTANCE); setSumLogImpl(NoopStat.INSTANCE); setGeoMeanImpl(NoopStat.INSTANCE); (NoopStat is a mock of StorelessUnivariateStatistic doijg nothing) Another point which could be improoved is the duplication of info accross sub StorelessUnivariateStatistic (typically n computed several times for instance). Good point. Its kind of funny that simplest way to solve the problem you mention at the end is to remove the flexibility that you use in the beginning - i.e., to no longer use separate stats instances to compute the bundled statistics. The setup is the way it is precisely so that you can plug in alternative impls. I had never thought of no-op-ing instances to suppress things, but it does work. Having stats share state data is a little tricky but in theory possible. The moment stats at least are set up to support this. Patches are welcome. If you don't mind opening a JIRA to suggest eliminating repeated computations that would be great. Phil Romain Manni-Bucau Twitter: @rmannibucau Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau 2013/11/6 Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com: On 11/6/13 9:05 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: Great! Btw not sure for sirona we oculd use it. One constraint on sirona-core is to stay self contained. We already shade math3 so shading pool2 too would start to create a big jar for this need. I'll try to bench deeper next week too. OK - and any ideas you have about how to implement something lightweight inside [math] much appreciated. Phil Romain Manni-Bucau Twitter: @rmannibucau Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau 2013/11/6 Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com: On 11/6/13 8:47 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: well pool are based on locks so I'm not sure (it would need deep benchs on a real app) it does worth it Commons pool2 uses pretty lightweight locking and using a pool of instances achieves the basic objective of reducing contention for the single sync lock on one SummaryStatistics object. I bet it would improve throughput over the single-instance approach if maxActive, maxIdle were tuned. If I get some time to play with this, I will report back with some benchmarks. Phil Romain Manni-Bucau Twitter: @rmannibucau Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau 2013/11/6 Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com: On 11/5/13 11:26 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: Hehe, right. I looked a bit more today and LongAdder is only a part of the solution. The stat computation still needs to lock to get acces to previous values (N - N+1). Basically the gain wouldn't be as important as I thought :(. Right, but I think your original idea of maintaining a pool of instances (fewer that one per thread) to be periodically aggregated is a good one. See below. As I said before we'll wait a bit to gather feedbacks, if it blocks I'll come back trying to find + propose a solution. Thanks in all cases for your answers! A workaround that I have started playing with (partly for other benchmarking reasons) might be to actually use a pool for the stats objects that the monitoring threads use. Using a pool would allow you to monitor and tune the parameters. We now have (well, once the VOTE in progress completes :) a decently performing pool implementation. The tricky bit is locking the instances during aggregation. One way to handle this would be to have the factory's passivate method and the aggregation thread contend for locks on the pooled stats instances. The only contention would be when aggregation is copying individual instances and contention would be with at most one client thread (waiting to proceed in passivate). Phil Romain Manni-Bucau Twitter: @rmannibucau Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau 2013/11/5 Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com: On 11/5/13 9:57 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: @Phil: hmm can be but the framework would create its own overhead which would be avoided with a dedicated solution, no? Well
Re: [math] Multithreaded performances
On 11/20/13, 7:26 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: next version (rewrite/fork): https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/sirona/trunk/core/src/main/java/org/apache/sirona/counters/OptimizedStatistics.java was easier to centralize everything in a single class That is exactly what I meant about the moment statistics. They can share state. The problem is this approach eliminates the pluggability and also cuts out the other stats. We can probably have it both ways by allowing you to turn off stuff you don't want and just having the moment stats share state. Phil Romain Manni-Bucau Twitter: @rmannibucau Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau 2013/11/20 Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com: On 11/20/13, 12:43 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: Hi A quick mail to give some feedbacks of my tests. I started to hack a bit to get rid of not used stats by sirona, typically I do ATM: setSumsqImpl(NoopStat.INSTANCE); setSumLogImpl(NoopStat.INSTANCE); setGeoMeanImpl(NoopStat.INSTANCE); (NoopStat is a mock of StorelessUnivariateStatistic doijg nothing) Another point which could be improoved is the duplication of info accross sub StorelessUnivariateStatistic (typically n computed several times for instance). Good point. Its kind of funny that simplest way to solve the problem you mention at the end is to remove the flexibility that you use in the beginning - i.e., to no longer use separate stats instances to compute the bundled statistics. The setup is the way it is precisely so that you can plug in alternative impls. I had never thought of no-op-ing instances to suppress things, but it does work. Having stats share state data is a little tricky but in theory possible. The moment stats at least are set up to support this. Patches are welcome. If you don't mind opening a JIRA to suggest eliminating repeated computations that would be great. Phil Romain Manni-Bucau Twitter: @rmannibucau Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau 2013/11/6 Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com: On 11/6/13 9:05 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: Great! Btw not sure for sirona we oculd use it. One constraint on sirona-core is to stay self contained. We already shade math3 so shading pool2 too would start to create a big jar for this need. I'll try to bench deeper next week too. OK - and any ideas you have about how to implement something lightweight inside [math] much appreciated. Phil Romain Manni-Bucau Twitter: @rmannibucau Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau 2013/11/6 Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com: On 11/6/13 8:47 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: well pool are based on locks so I'm not sure (it would need deep benchs on a real app) it does worth it Commons pool2 uses pretty lightweight locking and using a pool of instances achieves the basic objective of reducing contention for the single sync lock on one SummaryStatistics object. I bet it would improve throughput over the single-instance approach if maxActive, maxIdle were tuned. If I get some time to play with this, I will report back with some benchmarks. Phil Romain Manni-Bucau Twitter: @rmannibucau Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau 2013/11/6 Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com: On 11/5/13 11:26 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: Hehe, right. I looked a bit more today and LongAdder is only a part of the solution. The stat computation still needs to lock to get acces to previous values (N - N+1). Basically the gain wouldn't be as important as I thought :(. Right, but I think your original idea of maintaining a pool of instances (fewer that one per thread) to be periodically aggregated is a good one. See below. As I said before we'll wait a bit to gather feedbacks, if it blocks I'll come back trying to find + propose a solution. Thanks in all cases for your answers! A workaround that I have started playing with (partly for other benchmarking reasons) might be to actually use a pool for the stats objects that the monitoring threads use. Using a pool would allow you to monitor and tune the parameters. We now have (well, once the VOTE in progress completes :) a decently performing pool implementation. The tricky bit is locking the instances during aggregation. One way to handle this would be to have the factory's passivate method and the aggregation thread contend for locks on the pooled stats instances. The only contention would be when aggregation is copying individual instances and contention would be with at most one client thread (waiting to proceed in passivate). Phil Romain Manni-Bucau Twitter:
Re: [math] Multithreaded performances
yep but this is not enough, almost each component is doing n++. This is fast but since done under a lock if it can be removed it should. Romain Manni-Bucau Twitter: @rmannibucau Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau 2013/11/20 Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com: On 11/20/13, 7:26 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: next version (rewrite/fork): https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/sirona/trunk/core/src/main/java/org/apache/sirona/counters/OptimizedStatistics.java was easier to centralize everything in a single class That is exactly what I meant about the moment statistics. They can share state. The problem is this approach eliminates the pluggability and also cuts out the other stats. We can probably have it both ways by allowing you to turn off stuff you don't want and just having the moment stats share state. Phil Romain Manni-Bucau Twitter: @rmannibucau Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau 2013/11/20 Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com: On 11/20/13, 12:43 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: Hi A quick mail to give some feedbacks of my tests. I started to hack a bit to get rid of not used stats by sirona, typically I do ATM: setSumsqImpl(NoopStat.INSTANCE); setSumLogImpl(NoopStat.INSTANCE); setGeoMeanImpl(NoopStat.INSTANCE); (NoopStat is a mock of StorelessUnivariateStatistic doijg nothing) Another point which could be improoved is the duplication of info accross sub StorelessUnivariateStatistic (typically n computed several times for instance). Good point. Its kind of funny that simplest way to solve the problem you mention at the end is to remove the flexibility that you use in the beginning - i.e., to no longer use separate stats instances to compute the bundled statistics. The setup is the way it is precisely so that you can plug in alternative impls. I had never thought of no-op-ing instances to suppress things, but it does work. Having stats share state data is a little tricky but in theory possible. The moment stats at least are set up to support this. Patches are welcome. If you don't mind opening a JIRA to suggest eliminating repeated computations that would be great. Phil Romain Manni-Bucau Twitter: @rmannibucau Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau 2013/11/6 Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com: On 11/6/13 9:05 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: Great! Btw not sure for sirona we oculd use it. One constraint on sirona-core is to stay self contained. We already shade math3 so shading pool2 too would start to create a big jar for this need. I'll try to bench deeper next week too. OK - and any ideas you have about how to implement something lightweight inside [math] much appreciated. Phil Romain Manni-Bucau Twitter: @rmannibucau Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau 2013/11/6 Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com: On 11/6/13 8:47 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: well pool are based on locks so I'm not sure (it would need deep benchs on a real app) it does worth it Commons pool2 uses pretty lightweight locking and using a pool of instances achieves the basic objective of reducing contention for the single sync lock on one SummaryStatistics object. I bet it would improve throughput over the single-instance approach if maxActive, maxIdle were tuned. If I get some time to play with this, I will report back with some benchmarks. Phil Romain Manni-Bucau Twitter: @rmannibucau Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau 2013/11/6 Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com: On 11/5/13 11:26 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: Hehe, right. I looked a bit more today and LongAdder is only a part of the solution. The stat computation still needs to lock to get acces to previous values (N - N+1). Basically the gain wouldn't be as important as I thought :(. Right, but I think your original idea of maintaining a pool of instances (fewer that one per thread) to be periodically aggregated is a good one. See below. As I said before we'll wait a bit to gather feedbacks, if it blocks I'll come back trying to find + propose a solution. Thanks in all cases for your answers! A workaround that I have started playing with (partly for other benchmarking reasons) might be to actually use a pool for the stats objects that the monitoring threads use. Using a pool would allow you to monitor and tune the parameters. We now have (well, once the VOTE in progress completes :) a decently performing pool implementation. The tricky bit is locking the instances during
Re: [math] Multithreaded performances
On 11/5/13 11:26 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: Hehe, right. I looked a bit more today and LongAdder is only a part of the solution. The stat computation still needs to lock to get acces to previous values (N - N+1). Basically the gain wouldn't be as important as I thought :(. Right, but I think your original idea of maintaining a pool of instances (fewer that one per thread) to be periodically aggregated is a good one. See below. As I said before we'll wait a bit to gather feedbacks, if it blocks I'll come back trying to find + propose a solution. Thanks in all cases for your answers! A workaround that I have started playing with (partly for other benchmarking reasons) might be to actually use a pool for the stats objects that the monitoring threads use. Using a pool would allow you to monitor and tune the parameters. We now have (well, once the VOTE in progress completes :) a decently performing pool implementation. The tricky bit is locking the instances during aggregation. One way to handle this would be to have the factory's passivate method and the aggregation thread contend for locks on the pooled stats instances. The only contention would be when aggregation is copying individual instances and contention would be with at most one client thread (waiting to proceed in passivate). Phil Romain Manni-Bucau Twitter: @rmannibucau Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau 2013/11/5 Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com: On 11/5/13 9:57 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: @Phil: hmm can be but the framework would create its own overhead which would be avoided with a dedicated solution, no? Well thought gain was great for small investment but ok to postpone it As I said, patches welcome. Go for it. My point about the framework was that when you actually get this implemented inside, e.g. SummaryStatistics, you will have built a mini-framework. Whatever overhead it has, it will have ;) Phil Le 5 nov. 2013 18:54, Romain Manni-Bucau rmannibu...@gmail.com a écrit : Well I didnt test sirona in prod but when using jamon (same kind of framework) locks were creating a serious overhead on some benches. Not the most important but enough to try to solve it. That said we are not yet in 1.0 so Im ok to wait for more serious feedbacks if you think it is better Le 5 nov. 2013 18:48, Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@gmail.com a écrit : On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 10:09 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau rmannibu...@gmail.comwrote: Oh sorry, that's what I said early, in a real app no or not enough to be an issue buy on simple apps or very high thrououtput apps yes. Le 5 nov. 2013 07:00, Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@gmail.com a écrit : That isn't what I meant. Do you really think that more than one metric has to update (increment, say) at precisely the same time? I realize that is what you said. Do you have any serious examples where metrics have to be updated all or nothing? - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
Re: [math] Multithreaded performances
well pool are based on locks so I'm not sure (it would need deep benchs on a real app) it does worth it Romain Manni-Bucau Twitter: @rmannibucau Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau 2013/11/6 Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com: On 11/5/13 11:26 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: Hehe, right. I looked a bit more today and LongAdder is only a part of the solution. The stat computation still needs to lock to get acces to previous values (N - N+1). Basically the gain wouldn't be as important as I thought :(. Right, but I think your original idea of maintaining a pool of instances (fewer that one per thread) to be periodically aggregated is a good one. See below. As I said before we'll wait a bit to gather feedbacks, if it blocks I'll come back trying to find + propose a solution. Thanks in all cases for your answers! A workaround that I have started playing with (partly for other benchmarking reasons) might be to actually use a pool for the stats objects that the monitoring threads use. Using a pool would allow you to monitor and tune the parameters. We now have (well, once the VOTE in progress completes :) a decently performing pool implementation. The tricky bit is locking the instances during aggregation. One way to handle this would be to have the factory's passivate method and the aggregation thread contend for locks on the pooled stats instances. The only contention would be when aggregation is copying individual instances and contention would be with at most one client thread (waiting to proceed in passivate). Phil Romain Manni-Bucau Twitter: @rmannibucau Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau 2013/11/5 Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com: On 11/5/13 9:57 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: @Phil: hmm can be but the framework would create its own overhead which would be avoided with a dedicated solution, no? Well thought gain was great for small investment but ok to postpone it As I said, patches welcome. Go for it. My point about the framework was that when you actually get this implemented inside, e.g. SummaryStatistics, you will have built a mini-framework. Whatever overhead it has, it will have ;) Phil Le 5 nov. 2013 18:54, Romain Manni-Bucau rmannibu...@gmail.com a écrit : Well I didnt test sirona in prod but when using jamon (same kind of framework) locks were creating a serious overhead on some benches. Not the most important but enough to try to solve it. That said we are not yet in 1.0 so Im ok to wait for more serious feedbacks if you think it is better Le 5 nov. 2013 18:48, Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@gmail.com a écrit : On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 10:09 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau rmannibu...@gmail.comwrote: Oh sorry, that's what I said early, in a real app no or not enough to be an issue buy on simple apps or very high thrououtput apps yes. Le 5 nov. 2013 07:00, Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@gmail.com a écrit : That isn't what I meant. Do you really think that more than one metric has to update (increment, say) at precisely the same time? I realize that is what you said. Do you have any serious examples where metrics have to be updated all or nothing? - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
Re: [math] Multithreaded performances
On 11/6/13 8:47 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: well pool are based on locks so I'm not sure (it would need deep benchs on a real app) it does worth it Commons pool2 uses pretty lightweight locking and using a pool of instances achieves the basic objective of reducing contention for the single sync lock on one SummaryStatistics object. I bet it would improve throughput over the single-instance approach if maxActive, maxIdle were tuned. If I get some time to play with this, I will report back with some benchmarks. Phil Romain Manni-Bucau Twitter: @rmannibucau Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau 2013/11/6 Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com: On 11/5/13 11:26 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: Hehe, right. I looked a bit more today and LongAdder is only a part of the solution. The stat computation still needs to lock to get acces to previous values (N - N+1). Basically the gain wouldn't be as important as I thought :(. Right, but I think your original idea of maintaining a pool of instances (fewer that one per thread) to be periodically aggregated is a good one. See below. As I said before we'll wait a bit to gather feedbacks, if it blocks I'll come back trying to find + propose a solution. Thanks in all cases for your answers! A workaround that I have started playing with (partly for other benchmarking reasons) might be to actually use a pool for the stats objects that the monitoring threads use. Using a pool would allow you to monitor and tune the parameters. We now have (well, once the VOTE in progress completes :) a decently performing pool implementation. The tricky bit is locking the instances during aggregation. One way to handle this would be to have the factory's passivate method and the aggregation thread contend for locks on the pooled stats instances. The only contention would be when aggregation is copying individual instances and contention would be with at most one client thread (waiting to proceed in passivate). Phil Romain Manni-Bucau Twitter: @rmannibucau Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau 2013/11/5 Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com: On 11/5/13 9:57 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: @Phil: hmm can be but the framework would create its own overhead which would be avoided with a dedicated solution, no? Well thought gain was great for small investment but ok to postpone it As I said, patches welcome. Go for it. My point about the framework was that when you actually get this implemented inside, e.g. SummaryStatistics, you will have built a mini-framework. Whatever overhead it has, it will have ;) Phil Le 5 nov. 2013 18:54, Romain Manni-Bucau rmannibu...@gmail.com a écrit : Well I didnt test sirona in prod but when using jamon (same kind of framework) locks were creating a serious overhead on some benches. Not the most important but enough to try to solve it. That said we are not yet in 1.0 so Im ok to wait for more serious feedbacks if you think it is better Le 5 nov. 2013 18:48, Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@gmail.com a écrit : On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 10:09 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau rmannibu...@gmail.comwrote: Oh sorry, that's what I said early, in a real app no or not enough to be an issue buy on simple apps or very high thrououtput apps yes. Le 5 nov. 2013 07:00, Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@gmail.com a écrit : That isn't what I meant. Do you really think that more than one metric has to update (increment, say) at precisely the same time? I realize that is what you said. Do you have any serious examples where metrics have to be updated all or nothing? - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
Re: [math] Multithreaded performances
Great! Btw not sure for sirona we oculd use it. One constraint on sirona-core is to stay self contained. We already shade math3 so shading pool2 too would start to create a big jar for this need. I'll try to bench deeper next week too. Romain Manni-Bucau Twitter: @rmannibucau Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau 2013/11/6 Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com: On 11/6/13 8:47 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: well pool are based on locks so I'm not sure (it would need deep benchs on a real app) it does worth it Commons pool2 uses pretty lightweight locking and using a pool of instances achieves the basic objective of reducing contention for the single sync lock on one SummaryStatistics object. I bet it would improve throughput over the single-instance approach if maxActive, maxIdle were tuned. If I get some time to play with this, I will report back with some benchmarks. Phil Romain Manni-Bucau Twitter: @rmannibucau Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau 2013/11/6 Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com: On 11/5/13 11:26 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: Hehe, right. I looked a bit more today and LongAdder is only a part of the solution. The stat computation still needs to lock to get acces to previous values (N - N+1). Basically the gain wouldn't be as important as I thought :(. Right, but I think your original idea of maintaining a pool of instances (fewer that one per thread) to be periodically aggregated is a good one. See below. As I said before we'll wait a bit to gather feedbacks, if it blocks I'll come back trying to find + propose a solution. Thanks in all cases for your answers! A workaround that I have started playing with (partly for other benchmarking reasons) might be to actually use a pool for the stats objects that the monitoring threads use. Using a pool would allow you to monitor and tune the parameters. We now have (well, once the VOTE in progress completes :) a decently performing pool implementation. The tricky bit is locking the instances during aggregation. One way to handle this would be to have the factory's passivate method and the aggregation thread contend for locks on the pooled stats instances. The only contention would be when aggregation is copying individual instances and contention would be with at most one client thread (waiting to proceed in passivate). Phil Romain Manni-Bucau Twitter: @rmannibucau Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau 2013/11/5 Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com: On 11/5/13 9:57 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: @Phil: hmm can be but the framework would create its own overhead which would be avoided with a dedicated solution, no? Well thought gain was great for small investment but ok to postpone it As I said, patches welcome. Go for it. My point about the framework was that when you actually get this implemented inside, e.g. SummaryStatistics, you will have built a mini-framework. Whatever overhead it has, it will have ;) Phil Le 5 nov. 2013 18:54, Romain Manni-Bucau rmannibu...@gmail.com a écrit : Well I didnt test sirona in prod but when using jamon (same kind of framework) locks were creating a serious overhead on some benches. Not the most important but enough to try to solve it. That said we are not yet in 1.0 so Im ok to wait for more serious feedbacks if you think it is better Le 5 nov. 2013 18:48, Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@gmail.com a écrit : On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 10:09 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau rmannibu...@gmail.comwrote: Oh sorry, that's what I said early, in a real app no or not enough to be an issue buy on simple apps or very high thrououtput apps yes. Le 5 nov. 2013 07:00, Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@gmail.com a écrit : That isn't what I meant. Do you really think that more than one metric has to update (increment, say) at precisely the same time? I realize that is what you said. Do you have any serious examples where metrics have to be updated all or nothing? - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands,
Re: [math] Multithreaded performances
On 11/6/13 9:05 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: Great! Btw not sure for sirona we oculd use it. One constraint on sirona-core is to stay self contained. We already shade math3 so shading pool2 too would start to create a big jar for this need. I'll try to bench deeper next week too. OK - and any ideas you have about how to implement something lightweight inside [math] much appreciated. Phil Romain Manni-Bucau Twitter: @rmannibucau Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau 2013/11/6 Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com: On 11/6/13 8:47 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: well pool are based on locks so I'm not sure (it would need deep benchs on a real app) it does worth it Commons pool2 uses pretty lightweight locking and using a pool of instances achieves the basic objective of reducing contention for the single sync lock on one SummaryStatistics object. I bet it would improve throughput over the single-instance approach if maxActive, maxIdle were tuned. If I get some time to play with this, I will report back with some benchmarks. Phil Romain Manni-Bucau Twitter: @rmannibucau Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau 2013/11/6 Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com: On 11/5/13 11:26 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: Hehe, right. I looked a bit more today and LongAdder is only a part of the solution. The stat computation still needs to lock to get acces to previous values (N - N+1). Basically the gain wouldn't be as important as I thought :(. Right, but I think your original idea of maintaining a pool of instances (fewer that one per thread) to be periodically aggregated is a good one. See below. As I said before we'll wait a bit to gather feedbacks, if it blocks I'll come back trying to find + propose a solution. Thanks in all cases for your answers! A workaround that I have started playing with (partly for other benchmarking reasons) might be to actually use a pool for the stats objects that the monitoring threads use. Using a pool would allow you to monitor and tune the parameters. We now have (well, once the VOTE in progress completes :) a decently performing pool implementation. The tricky bit is locking the instances during aggregation. One way to handle this would be to have the factory's passivate method and the aggregation thread contend for locks on the pooled stats instances. The only contention would be when aggregation is copying individual instances and contention would be with at most one client thread (waiting to proceed in passivate). Phil Romain Manni-Bucau Twitter: @rmannibucau Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau 2013/11/5 Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com: On 11/5/13 9:57 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: @Phil: hmm can be but the framework would create its own overhead which would be avoided with a dedicated solution, no? Well thought gain was great for small investment but ok to postpone it As I said, patches welcome. Go for it. My point about the framework was that when you actually get this implemented inside, e.g. SummaryStatistics, you will have built a mini-framework. Whatever overhead it has, it will have ;) Phil Le 5 nov. 2013 18:54, Romain Manni-Bucau rmannibu...@gmail.com a écrit : Well I didnt test sirona in prod but when using jamon (same kind of framework) locks were creating a serious overhead on some benches. Not the most important but enough to try to solve it. That said we are not yet in 1.0 so Im ok to wait for more serious feedbacks if you think it is better Le 5 nov. 2013 18:48, Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@gmail.com a écrit : On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 10:09 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau rmannibu...@gmail.comwrote: Oh sorry, that's what I said early, in a real app no or not enough to be an issue buy on simple apps or very high thrououtput apps yes. Le 5 nov. 2013 07:00, Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@gmail.com a écrit : That isn't what I meant. Do you really think that more than one metric has to update (increment, say) at precisely the same time? I realize that is what you said. Do you have any serious examples where metrics have to be updated all or nothing? - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail:
Re: [math] Multithreaded performances
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 10:09 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau rmannibu...@gmail.comwrote: Oh sorry, that's what I said early, in a real app no or not enough to be an issue buy on simple apps or very high thrououtput apps yes. Le 5 nov. 2013 07:00, Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@gmail.com a écrit : That isn't what I meant. Do you really think that more than one metric has to update (increment, say) at precisely the same time? I realize that is what you said. Do you have any serious examples where metrics have to be updated all or nothing?
Re: [math] Multithreaded performances
On 11/4/13 9:59 PM, Ted Dunning wrote: That isn't what I meant. Do you really think that more than one metric has to update (increment, say) at precisely the same time? Yes, that is the problem. For consistency, you need multiple quantities atomically updated for any of the moment-based stats. The sum or count requires just one; but in general you need more than one. Also, obviously if what you are interested is a consistent statistical summary (like one of the aggregates provides), you need to update all the different stats atomically. I like the LongAddr idea; but to generalize it you basically end up creating a mini M/R framework inside one of the statistical aggregates. Could be done, I guess, but I wonder if what is being built in this case is a more general execution framework for concurrent update of aggregation-friendly objects. Phil On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 9:49 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau rmannibu...@gmail.comwrote: You cant stop the app cause you take a snapshot of the monitoring metrics so yes Le 5 nov. 2013 06:46, Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@gmail.com a écrit : On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 8:23 PM, Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com wrote: On 11/4/13 3:44 PM, Ted Dunning wrote: The copy doesn't have to lock if you build the right data structure. The individual stats objects need to update multiple quantities atomically when new values come in. Consistency in the copy requires that you suppress updates while the copy is in progress unless you implement some kind of update queue internally. What exactly do you mean by the right data structure? I was talking about lockless data structures in general. Are you sure that real transactions are a requirement here? - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
Re: [math] Multithreaded performances
Well I didnt test sirona in prod but when using jamon (same kind of framework) locks were creating a serious overhead on some benches. Not the most important but enough to try to solve it. That said we are not yet in 1.0 so Im ok to wait for more serious feedbacks if you think it is better Le 5 nov. 2013 18:48, Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@gmail.com a écrit : On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 10:09 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau rmannibu...@gmail.comwrote: Oh sorry, that's what I said early, in a real app no or not enough to be an issue buy on simple apps or very high thrououtput apps yes. Le 5 nov. 2013 07:00, Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@gmail.com a écrit : That isn't what I meant. Do you really think that more than one metric has to update (increment, say) at precisely the same time? I realize that is what you said. Do you have any serious examples where metrics have to be updated all or nothing?
Re: [math] Multithreaded performances
@Phil: hmm can be but the framework would create its own overhead which would be avoided with a dedicated solution, no? Well thought gain was great for small investment but ok to postpone it Le 5 nov. 2013 18:54, Romain Manni-Bucau rmannibu...@gmail.com a écrit : Well I didnt test sirona in prod but when using jamon (same kind of framework) locks were creating a serious overhead on some benches. Not the most important but enough to try to solve it. That said we are not yet in 1.0 so Im ok to wait for more serious feedbacks if you think it is better Le 5 nov. 2013 18:48, Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@gmail.com a écrit : On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 10:09 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau rmannibu...@gmail.comwrote: Oh sorry, that's what I said early, in a real app no or not enough to be an issue buy on simple apps or very high thrououtput apps yes. Le 5 nov. 2013 07:00, Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@gmail.com a écrit : That isn't what I meant. Do you really think that more than one metric has to update (increment, say) at precisely the same time? I realize that is what you said. Do you have any serious examples where metrics have to be updated all or nothing?
Re: [math] Multithreaded performances
Hehe, right. I looked a bit more today and LongAdder is only a part of the solution. The stat computation still needs to lock to get acces to previous values (N - N+1). Basically the gain wouldn't be as important as I thought :(. As I said before we'll wait a bit to gather feedbacks, if it blocks I'll come back trying to find + propose a solution. Thanks in all cases for your answers! Romain Manni-Bucau Twitter: @rmannibucau Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau 2013/11/5 Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com: On 11/5/13 9:57 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: @Phil: hmm can be but the framework would create its own overhead which would be avoided with a dedicated solution, no? Well thought gain was great for small investment but ok to postpone it As I said, patches welcome. Go for it. My point about the framework was that when you actually get this implemented inside, e.g. SummaryStatistics, you will have built a mini-framework. Whatever overhead it has, it will have ;) Phil Le 5 nov. 2013 18:54, Romain Manni-Bucau rmannibu...@gmail.com a écrit : Well I didnt test sirona in prod but when using jamon (same kind of framework) locks were creating a serious overhead on some benches. Not the most important but enough to try to solve it. That said we are not yet in 1.0 so Im ok to wait for more serious feedbacks if you think it is better Le 5 nov. 2013 18:48, Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@gmail.com a écrit : On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 10:09 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau rmannibu...@gmail.comwrote: Oh sorry, that's what I said early, in a real app no or not enough to be an issue buy on simple apps or very high thrououtput apps yes. Le 5 nov. 2013 07:00, Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@gmail.com a écrit : That isn't what I meant. Do you really think that more than one metric has to update (increment, say) at precisely the same time? I realize that is what you said. Do you have any serious examples where metrics have to be updated all or nothing? - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
Re: [math] Multithreaded performances
My experience is that the only way to get really high performance with counter-like objects is to have one per thread and combine them on read. On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 8:49 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau rmannibu...@gmail.comwrote: Hi, ATM sirona (a java monitoring library in incubator) relies a lot on Summary stats object from [math3] but it needed a lock to ensure consistency. I know there is a synchronized version but this one scales less then the locked one. My question is quite simple then: will [math] add an implementation with thread safety guarantee and good performances? I think for instance to the LongAdder of Doug Lea which could be used as a good base. Romain Manni-Bucau Twitter: @rmannibucau Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
Re: [math] Multithreaded performances
Thats more or less what does LongAdder in a more clever way. Le 4 nov. 2013 18:15, Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@gmail.com a écrit : My experience is that the only way to get really high performance with counter-like objects is to have one per thread and combine them on read. On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 8:49 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau rmannibu...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, ATM sirona (a java monitoring library in incubator) relies a lot on Summary stats object from [math3] but it needed a lock to ensure consistency. I know there is a synchronized version but this one scales less then the locked one. My question is quite simple then: will [math] add an implementation with thread safety guarantee and good performances? I think for instance to the LongAdder of Doug Lea which could be used as a good base. Romain Manni-Bucau Twitter: @rmannibucau Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
Re: [math] Multithreaded performances
On 11/4/13 8:49 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: Hi, ATM sirona (a java monitoring library in incubator) relies a lot on Summary stats object from [math3] but it needed a lock to ensure consistency. I know there is a synchronized version but this one scales less then the locked one. My question is quite simple then: will [math] add an implementation with thread safety guarantee and good performances? I think for instance to the LongAdder of Doug Lea which could be used as a good base. The short answer is yes, patches welcome. Ted makes a good point, though; and there is already some support for aggregation in the stats classes in [math] (i.e., you can aggregate the results of per-thread stats by using, e.g. AggregateSummaryStatistics#aggregate). See MATH-1016 re extending this to more stats. Phil Romain Manni-Bucau Twitter: @rmannibucau Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
Re: [math] Multithreaded performances
But aggregation needs to lock so not a real solution. Lock is fine on real cases but not in simple/light ones. ThreadLocal leaks...so a trade off should be found Le 4 nov. 2013 18:42, Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com a écrit : On 11/4/13 8:49 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: Hi, ATM sirona (a java monitoring library in incubator) relies a lot on Summary stats object from [math3] but it needed a lock to ensure consistency. I know there is a synchronized version but this one scales less then the locked one. My question is quite simple then: will [math] add an implementation with thread safety guarantee and good performances? I think for instance to the LongAdder of Doug Lea which could be used as a good base. The short answer is yes, patches welcome. Ted makes a good point, though; and there is already some support for aggregation in the stats classes in [math] (i.e., you can aggregate the results of per-thread stats by using, e.g. AggregateSummaryStatistics#aggregate). See MATH-1016 re extending this to more stats. Phil Romain Manni-Bucau Twitter: @rmannibucau Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
Re: [math] Multithreaded performances
On 11/4/13 12:12 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: But aggregation needs to lock so not a real solution. Lock is fine on real cases but not in simple/light ones. ThreadLocal leaks...so a trade off should be found Depends on the use case. If the use case is 0) launch a bunch of threads and let them gather stats individually 1) aggregate results Then the static aggregate method in AggregateSummaryStatistics that takes a collection as input will work with no locking required. Phil Le 4 nov. 2013 18:42, Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com a écrit : On 11/4/13 8:49 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: Hi, ATM sirona (a java monitoring library in incubator) relies a lot on Summary stats object from [math3] but it needed a lock to ensure consistency. I know there is a synchronized version but this one scales less then the locked one. My question is quite simple then: will [math] add an implementation with thread safety guarantee and good performances? I think for instance to the LongAdder of Doug Lea which could be used as a good base. The short answer is yes, patches welcome. Ted makes a good point, though; and there is already some support for aggregation in the stats classes in [math] (i.e., you can aggregate the results of per-thread stats by using, e.g. AggregateSummaryStatistics#aggregate). See MATH-1016 re extending this to more stats. Phil Romain Manni-Bucau Twitter: @rmannibucau Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
Re: [math] Multithreaded performances
In sirona we collect (aggregate) data each N ms and we can still use stats during aggregation (worse case surely) Le 4 nov. 2013 21:48, Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com a écrit : On 11/4/13 12:12 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: But aggregation needs to lock so not a real solution. Lock is fine on real cases but not in simple/light ones. ThreadLocal leaks...so a trade off should be found Depends on the use case. If the use case is 0) launch a bunch of threads and let them gather stats individually 1) aggregate results Then the static aggregate method in AggregateSummaryStatistics that takes a collection as input will work with no locking required. Phil Le 4 nov. 2013 18:42, Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com a écrit : On 11/4/13 8:49 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: Hi, ATM sirona (a java monitoring library in incubator) relies a lot on Summary stats object from [math3] but it needed a lock to ensure consistency. I know there is a synchronized version but this one scales less then the locked one. My question is quite simple then: will [math] add an implementation with thread safety guarantee and good performances? I think for instance to the LongAdder of Doug Lea which could be used as a good base. The short answer is yes, patches welcome. Ted makes a good point, though; and there is already some support for aggregation in the stats classes in [math] (i.e., you can aggregate the results of per-thread stats by using, e.g. AggregateSummaryStatistics#aggregate). See MATH-1016 re extending this to more stats. Phil Romain Manni-Bucau Twitter: @rmannibucau Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
Re: [math] Multithreaded performances
On 11/4/13 12:58 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: In sirona we collect (aggregate) data each N ms and we can still use stats during aggregation (worse case surely) Can you explain more clearly exactly what you are doing? What needs to be aggregated when? How are the threads managed? Phil Le 4 nov. 2013 21:48, Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com a écrit : On 11/4/13 12:12 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: But aggregation needs to lock so not a real solution. Lock is fine on real cases but not in simple/light ones. ThreadLocal leaks...so a trade off should be found Depends on the use case. If the use case is 0) launch a bunch of threads and let them gather stats individually 1) aggregate results Then the static aggregate method in AggregateSummaryStatistics that takes a collection as input will work with no locking required. Phil Le 4 nov. 2013 18:42, Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com a écrit : On 11/4/13 8:49 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: Hi, ATM sirona (a java monitoring library in incubator) relies a lot on Summary stats object from [math3] but it needed a lock to ensure consistency. I know there is a synchronized version but this one scales less then the locked one. My question is quite simple then: will [math] add an implementation with thread safety guarantee and good performances? I think for instance to the LongAdder of Doug Lea which could be used as a good base. The short answer is yes, patches welcome. Ted makes a good point, though; and there is already some support for aggregation in the stats classes in [math] (i.e., you can aggregate the results of per-thread stats by using, e.g. AggregateSummaryStatistics#aggregate). See MATH-1016 re extending this to more stats. Phil Romain Manni-Bucau Twitter: @rmannibucau Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
Re: [math] Multithreaded performances
I still think that what you need is a thread-safe copy rather than a thread-safe mutate. Even if you force every thread to do the copy, the aggregation still still wins on complexity/correctness/performance ideas. On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 12:58 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau rmannibu...@gmail.comwrote: In sirona we collect (aggregate) data each N ms and we can still use stats during aggregation (worse case surely) Le 4 nov. 2013 21:48, Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com a écrit : On 11/4/13 12:12 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: But aggregation needs to lock so not a real solution. Lock is fine on real cases but not in simple/light ones. ThreadLocal leaks...so a trade off should be found Depends on the use case. If the use case is 0) launch a bunch of threads and let them gather stats individually 1) aggregate results Then the static aggregate method in AggregateSummaryStatistics that takes a collection as input will work with no locking required. Phil Le 4 nov. 2013 18:42, Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com a écrit : On 11/4/13 8:49 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: Hi, ATM sirona (a java monitoring library in incubator) relies a lot on Summary stats object from [math3] but it needed a lock to ensure consistency. I know there is a synchronized version but this one scales less then the locked one. My question is quite simple then: will [math] add an implementation with thread safety guarantee and good performances? I think for instance to the LongAdder of Doug Lea which could be used as a good base. The short answer is yes, patches welcome. Ted makes a good point, though; and there is already some support for aggregation in the stats classes in [math] (i.e., you can aggregate the results of per-thread stats by using, e.g. AggregateSummaryStatistics#aggregate). See MATH-1016 re extending this to more stats. Phil Romain Manni-Bucau Twitter: @rmannibucau Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
Re: [math] Multithreaded performances
A counter has a stat object, then methods are intercepted and duration is added to the stat object (1 by method). Value is copied each 4s. Le 4 nov. 2013 23:23, Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@gmail.com a écrit : I still think that what you need is a thread-safe copy rather than a thread-safe mutate. Even if you force every thread to do the copy, the aggregation still still wins on complexity/correctness/performance ideas. On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 12:58 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau rmannibu...@gmail.comwrote: In sirona we collect (aggregate) data each N ms and we can still use stats during aggregation (worse case surely) Le 4 nov. 2013 21:48, Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com a écrit : On 11/4/13 12:12 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: But aggregation needs to lock so not a real solution. Lock is fine on real cases but not in simple/light ones. ThreadLocal leaks...so a trade off should be found Depends on the use case. If the use case is 0) launch a bunch of threads and let them gather stats individually 1) aggregate results Then the static aggregate method in AggregateSummaryStatistics that takes a collection as input will work with no locking required. Phil Le 4 nov. 2013 18:42, Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com a écrit : On 11/4/13 8:49 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: Hi, ATM sirona (a java monitoring library in incubator) relies a lot on Summary stats object from [math3] but it needed a lock to ensure consistency. I know there is a synchronized version but this one scales less then the locked one. My question is quite simple then: will [math] add an implementation with thread safety guarantee and good performances? I think for instance to the LongAdder of Doug Lea which could be used as a good base. The short answer is yes, patches welcome. Ted makes a good point, though; and there is already some support for aggregation in the stats classes in [math] (i.e., you can aggregate the results of per-thread stats by using, e.g. AggregateSummaryStatistics#aggregate). See MATH-1016 re extending this to more stats. Phil Romain Manni-Bucau Twitter: @rmannibucau Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
Re: [math] Multithreaded performances
On 11/4/13 2:22 PM, Ted Dunning wrote: I still think that what you need is a thread-safe copy rather than a thread-safe mutate. I was just thinking the same thing. Patches welcome. Phil Even if you force every thread to do the copy, the aggregation still still wins on complexity/correctness/performance ideas. On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 12:58 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau rmannibu...@gmail.comwrote: In sirona we collect (aggregate) data each N ms and we can still use stats during aggregation (worse case surely) Le 4 nov. 2013 21:48, Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com a écrit : On 11/4/13 12:12 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: But aggregation needs to lock so not a real solution. Lock is fine on real cases but not in simple/light ones. ThreadLocal leaks...so a trade off should be found Depends on the use case. If the use case is 0) launch a bunch of threads and let them gather stats individually 1) aggregate results Then the static aggregate method in AggregateSummaryStatistics that takes a collection as input will work with no locking required. Phil Le 4 nov. 2013 18:42, Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com a écrit : On 11/4/13 8:49 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: Hi, ATM sirona (a java monitoring library in incubator) relies a lot on Summary stats object from [math3] but it needed a lock to ensure consistency. I know there is a synchronized version but this one scales less then the locked one. My question is quite simple then: will [math] add an implementation with thread safety guarantee and good performances? I think for instance to the LongAdder of Doug Lea which could be used as a good base. The short answer is yes, patches welcome. Ted makes a good point, though; and there is already some support for aggregation in the stats classes in [math] (i.e., you can aggregate the results of per-thread stats by using, e.g. AggregateSummaryStatistics#aggregate). See MATH-1016 re extending this to more stats. Phil Romain Manni-Bucau Twitter: @rmannibucau Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
Re: [math] Multithreaded performances
The copy will lock too. And it doesnt solve leak issue of the one instance by thread solution, no? Le 4 nov. 2013 23:27, Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com a écrit : On 11/4/13 2:22 PM, Ted Dunning wrote: I still think that what you need is a thread-safe copy rather than a thread-safe mutate. I was just thinking the same thing. Patches welcome. Phil Even if you force every thread to do the copy, the aggregation still still wins on complexity/correctness/performance ideas. On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 12:58 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau rmannibu...@gmail.comwrote: In sirona we collect (aggregate) data each N ms and we can still use stats during aggregation (worse case surely) Le 4 nov. 2013 21:48, Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com a écrit : On 11/4/13 12:12 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: But aggregation needs to lock so not a real solution. Lock is fine on real cases but not in simple/light ones. ThreadLocal leaks...so a trade off should be found Depends on the use case. If the use case is 0) launch a bunch of threads and let them gather stats individually 1) aggregate results Then the static aggregate method in AggregateSummaryStatistics that takes a collection as input will work with no locking required. Phil Le 4 nov. 2013 18:42, Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com a écrit : On 11/4/13 8:49 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: Hi, ATM sirona (a java monitoring library in incubator) relies a lot on Summary stats object from [math3] but it needed a lock to ensure consistency. I know there is a synchronized version but this one scales less then the locked one. My question is quite simple then: will [math] add an implementation with thread safety guarantee and good performances? I think for instance to the LongAdder of Doug Lea which could be used as a good base. The short answer is yes, patches welcome. Ted makes a good point, though; and there is already some support for aggregation in the stats classes in [math] (i.e., you can aggregate the results of per-thread stats by using, e.g. AggregateSummaryStatistics#aggregate). See MATH-1016 re extending this to more stats. Phil Romain Manni-Bucau Twitter: @rmannibucau Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
Re: [math] Multithreaded performances
On 11/4/13 2:31 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: The copy will lock too. Right. That is why I asked exactly how things work. If you can't lock during aggregation, we need something different. And it doesnt solve leak issue of the one instance by thread solution, no? Correct, again depends on the setup how big a problem that is / what can be done to manage it. Phil Le 4 nov. 2013 23:27, Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com a écrit : On 11/4/13 2:22 PM, Ted Dunning wrote: I still think that what you need is a thread-safe copy rather than a thread-safe mutate. I was just thinking the same thing. Patches welcome. Phil Even if you force every thread to do the copy, the aggregation still still wins on complexity/correctness/performance ideas. On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 12:58 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau rmannibu...@gmail.comwrote: In sirona we collect (aggregate) data each N ms and we can still use stats during aggregation (worse case surely) Le 4 nov. 2013 21:48, Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com a écrit : On 11/4/13 12:12 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: But aggregation needs to lock so not a real solution. Lock is fine on real cases but not in simple/light ones. ThreadLocal leaks...so a trade off should be found Depends on the use case. If the use case is 0) launch a bunch of threads and let them gather stats individually 1) aggregate results Then the static aggregate method in AggregateSummaryStatistics that takes a collection as input will work with no locking required. Phil Le 4 nov. 2013 18:42, Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com a écrit : On 11/4/13 8:49 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: Hi, ATM sirona (a java monitoring library in incubator) relies a lot on Summary stats object from [math3] but it needed a lock to ensure consistency. I know there is a synchronized version but this one scales less then the locked one. My question is quite simple then: will [math] add an implementation with thread safety guarantee and good performances? I think for instance to the LongAdder of Doug Lea which could be used as a good base. The short answer is yes, patches welcome. Ted makes a good point, though; and there is already some support for aggregation in the stats classes in [math] (i.e., you can aggregate the results of per-thread stats by using, e.g. AggregateSummaryStatistics#aggregate). See MATH-1016 re extending this to more stats. Phil Romain Manni-Bucau Twitter: @rmannibucau Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
Re: [math] Multithreaded performances
The copy doesn't have to lock if you build the right data structure. The thread leak problem can be more serious. On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 2:47 PM, Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com wrote: On 11/4/13 2:31 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: The copy will lock too. Right. That is why I asked exactly how things work. If you can't lock during aggregation, we need something different. And it doesnt solve leak issue of the one instance by thread solution, no? Correct, again depends on the setup how big a problem that is / what can be done to manage it. Phil Le 4 nov. 2013 23:27, Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com a écrit : On 11/4/13 2:22 PM, Ted Dunning wrote: I still think that what you need is a thread-safe copy rather than a thread-safe mutate. I was just thinking the same thing. Patches welcome. Phil Even if you force every thread to do the copy, the aggregation still still wins on complexity/correctness/performance ideas. On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 12:58 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau rmannibu...@gmail.comwrote: In sirona we collect (aggregate) data each N ms and we can still use stats during aggregation (worse case surely) Le 4 nov. 2013 21:48, Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com a écrit : On 11/4/13 12:12 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: But aggregation needs to lock so not a real solution. Lock is fine on real cases but not in simple/light ones. ThreadLocal leaks...so a trade off should be found Depends on the use case. If the use case is 0) launch a bunch of threads and let them gather stats individually 1) aggregate results Then the static aggregate method in AggregateSummaryStatistics that takes a collection as input will work with no locking required. Phil Le 4 nov. 2013 18:42, Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com a écrit : On 11/4/13 8:49 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: Hi, ATM sirona (a java monitoring library in incubator) relies a lot on Summary stats object from [math3] but it needed a lock to ensure consistency. I know there is a synchronized version but this one scales less then the locked one. My question is quite simple then: will [math] add an implementation with thread safety guarantee and good performances? I think for instance to the LongAdder of Doug Lea which could be used as a good base. The short answer is yes, patches welcome. Ted makes a good point, though; and there is already some support for aggregation in the stats classes in [math] (i.e., you can aggregate the results of per-thread stats by using, e.g. AggregateSummaryStatistics#aggregate). See MATH-1016 re extending this to more stats. Phil Romain Manni-Bucau Twitter: @rmannibucau Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
Re: [math] Multithreaded performances
Am 05.11.2013, 00:44 Uhr, schrieb Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@gmail.com: The thread leak problem can be more serious. What Thread Leak problem? TLS is cited to have that leak since ages, I am not sure I ever have seen one triggered. So, who has details on that? Even the JCL uses (more) thread local objects. For example in JDK8 the BigInteger has a thread local SecureRandom instance. One has to be carefull in regards to keeping classloaders alive, but that can be worked around with an expire, weak references or simply by only storing system classes (for example long[]!) Greetings Bernd - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
Re: [math] Multithreaded performances
Well before patching a consistent solution needs to be found. Sorry to go back to LongAdder but the idea is to add instances but not as much as thread. Just what is needed. It means you decrease the number of instance to aggregate so the lock time. The queue solution sounds worse since a queue is either empty or full ;) Le 5 nov. 2013 05:23, Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com a écrit : On 11/4/13 3:44 PM, Ted Dunning wrote: The copy doesn't have to lock if you build the right data structure. The individual stats objects need to update multiple quantities atomically when new values come in. Consistency in the copy requires that you suppress updates while the copy is in progress unless you implement some kind of update queue internally. What exactly do you mean by the right data structure? This discussion is bringing me back to the view that we had before we did anything to support synchronization - clients are better situated to manage the supporting infrastructure. As long as we support aggregation, clients should be able to do what they need to do. If the use case here, for example, is that lots of client threads need to contribute to aggregate stats and you can't pause any of them ever to aggregate, there is no free lunch, you are going to have to queue somewhere. The primitive solution of queuing on the sync lock for a single stats object is heavy and bad. Trying to build more lightweight queueing into the stat object itself is interesting, but I wonder if there is other stuff from these threads that should also be queued, or in general there is always going to be stuff about the application's execution environment unknown to us that make whatever we do less than optimal. All that said, patches welcome for lighter weight locking or explicit update queue management inside the stats objects. Phil The thread leak problem can be more serious. On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 2:47 PM, Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com wrote: On 11/4/13 2:31 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: The copy will lock too. Right. That is why I asked exactly how things work. If you can't lock during aggregation, we need something different. And it doesnt solve leak issue of the one instance by thread solution, no? Correct, again depends on the setup how big a problem that is / what can be done to manage it. Phil Le 4 nov. 2013 23:27, Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com a écrit : On 11/4/13 2:22 PM, Ted Dunning wrote: I still think that what you need is a thread-safe copy rather than a thread-safe mutate. I was just thinking the same thing. Patches welcome. Phil Even if you force every thread to do the copy, the aggregation still still wins on complexity/correctness/performance ideas. On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 12:58 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau rmannibu...@gmail.comwrote: In sirona we collect (aggregate) data each N ms and we can still use stats during aggregation (worse case surely) Le 4 nov. 2013 21:48, Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com a écrit : On 11/4/13 12:12 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: But aggregation needs to lock so not a real solution. Lock is fine on real cases but not in simple/light ones. ThreadLocal leaks...so a trade off should be found Depends on the use case. If the use case is 0) launch a bunch of threads and let them gather stats individually 1) aggregate results Then the static aggregate method in AggregateSummaryStatistics that takes a collection as input will work with no locking required. Phil Le 4 nov. 2013 18:42, Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com a écrit : On 11/4/13 8:49 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: Hi, ATM sirona (a java monitoring library in incubator) relies a lot on Summary stats object from [math3] but it needed a lock to ensure consistency. I know there is a synchronized version but this one scales less then the locked one. My question is quite simple then: will [math] add an implementation with thread safety guarantee and good performances? I think for instance to the LongAdder of Doug Lea which could be used as a good base. The short answer is yes, patches welcome. Ted makes a good point, though; and there is already some support for aggregation in the stats classes in [math] (i.e., you can aggregate the results of per-thread stats by using, e.g. AggregateSummaryStatistics#aggregate). See MATH-1016 re extending this to more stats. Phil Romain Manni-Bucau Twitter: @rmannibucau Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail:
Re: [math] Multithreaded performances
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 8:23 PM, Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com wrote: On 11/4/13 3:44 PM, Ted Dunning wrote: The copy doesn't have to lock if you build the right data structure. The individual stats objects need to update multiple quantities atomically when new values come in. Consistency in the copy requires that you suppress updates while the copy is in progress unless you implement some kind of update queue internally. What exactly do you mean by the right data structure? I was talking about lockless data structures in general. Are you sure that real transactions are a requirement here?
Re: [math] Multithreaded performances
You cant stop the app cause you take a snapshot of the monitoring metrics so yes Le 5 nov. 2013 06:46, Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@gmail.com a écrit : On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 8:23 PM, Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com wrote: On 11/4/13 3:44 PM, Ted Dunning wrote: The copy doesn't have to lock if you build the right data structure. The individual stats objects need to update multiple quantities atomically when new values come in. Consistency in the copy requires that you suppress updates while the copy is in progress unless you implement some kind of update queue internally. What exactly do you mean by the right data structure? I was talking about lockless data structures in general. Are you sure that real transactions are a requirement here?
Re: [math] Multithreaded performances
That isn't what I meant. Do you really think that more than one metric has to update (increment, say) at precisely the same time? On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 9:49 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau rmannibu...@gmail.comwrote: You cant stop the app cause you take a snapshot of the monitoring metrics so yes Le 5 nov. 2013 06:46, Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@gmail.com a écrit : On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 8:23 PM, Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com wrote: On 11/4/13 3:44 PM, Ted Dunning wrote: The copy doesn't have to lock if you build the right data structure. The individual stats objects need to update multiple quantities atomically when new values come in. Consistency in the copy requires that you suppress updates while the copy is in progress unless you implement some kind of update queue internally. What exactly do you mean by the right data structure? I was talking about lockless data structures in general. Are you sure that real transactions are a requirement here?
Re: [math] Multithreaded performances
Oh sorry, that's what I said early, in a real app no or not enough to be an issue buy on simple apps or very high thrououtput apps yes. Le 5 nov. 2013 07:00, Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@gmail.com a écrit : That isn't what I meant. Do you really think that more than one metric has to update (increment, say) at precisely the same time? On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 9:49 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau rmannibu...@gmail.com wrote: You cant stop the app cause you take a snapshot of the monitoring metrics so yes Le 5 nov. 2013 06:46, Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@gmail.com a écrit : On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 8:23 PM, Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com wrote: On 11/4/13 3:44 PM, Ted Dunning wrote: The copy doesn't have to lock if you build the right data structure. The individual stats objects need to update multiple quantities atomically when new values come in. Consistency in the copy requires that you suppress updates while the copy is in progress unless you implement some kind of update queue internally. What exactly do you mean by the right data structure? I was talking about lockless data structures in general. Are you sure that real transactions are a requirement here?
