[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-9797?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14626215#comment-14626215
]
Robert Stupp edited comment on CASSANDRA-9797 at 7/14/15 11:32 AM:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
No. Two timeouts on cassci and some {{java.lang.OutOfMemoryError: GC overhead
limit exceeded}} in {{CqlTableTest}}. I just looked at the number of failures
(31 vs. 12).
I don't think these failures are related to this patch. So I revert my revert
of +1 - so, let's shit it.
EDIT: (accidental yes/no swap)
was (Author: snazy):
Oh - yes. Two timeouts on cassci and some {{java.lang.OutOfMemoryError: GC
overhead limit exceeded}} in {{CqlTableTest}}. I just looked at the number of
failures (31 vs. 12).
I don't think these failures are related to this patch. So I revert my revert
of +1 - so, let's shit it.
> Don't wrap byte arrays in SequentialWriter
> ------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CASSANDRA-9797
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-9797
> Project: Cassandra
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Sylvain Lebresne
> Assignee: Sylvain Lebresne
> Priority: Minor
> Labels: performance
> Fix For: 3.x
>
> Attachments: 9797.txt
>
>
> While profiling a simple stress write run ({{cassandra-stress write n=2000000
> -rate threads=50}} to be precise) with Mission Control, I noticed that a non
> trivial amount of heap pressure was due to the {{ByteBuffer.wrap()}} call in
> {{SequentialWriter.write(byte[])}}. Basically, when writing a byte array, we
> wrap it in a ByteBuffer to reuse the {{SequentialWriter.write(ByteBuffer)}}
> method. One could have hoped this wrapping would be stack allocated, but if
> Mission Control isn't lying (and I was told it's fairly honest on that
> front), it's not. And we do use that {{write(byte[])}} method quite a bit,
> especially with the new vint encodings since they use a {{byte[]}} thread
> local buffer and call that method.
> Anyway, it sounds very simple to me to have a more direct {{write(byte[])}}
> method, so attaching a patch to do that. A very quick local benchmark seems
> to show a little bit less allocation and a slight edge for the branch with
> this patch (on top of CASSANDRA-9705 I must add), but that local bench was
> far from scientific so happy if someone that knows how to use our perf
> service want to give that patch a shot.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
