[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-1955?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Peter Schuller reassigned CASSANDRA-1955:
-----------------------------------------
Assignee: Peter Schuller
> memtable flushing can block writes due to queue size limitations even though
> overall write throughput is below capacity
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CASSANDRA-1955
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-1955
> Project: Cassandra
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Core
> Reporter: Peter Schuller
> Assignee: Peter Schuller
> Fix For: 0.7.1
>
>
> It seems that someone ran into this (see cassandra-user thread "Question re:
> the use of multiple ColumnFamilies").
> If my interpretation is correct, the queue size is set to the concurrency in
> the case of the flushSorter, and set to memtable_flush_writers in the case of
> flushWriter in ColumnFamilyStore.
> While the choice of concurrency for the two executors makes perfect sense,
> the queue sizing does not. As a user, I would expect, and did expect, that
> for a given memtable independently tuned (w.r.t. flushing thresholds etc),
> writes to the CF would not block until there is at least one other memtable
> *for that CF* waiting to be flushed.
> With the current behavior, if I am not misinterpreting, whether or not writes
> will inappropriately block is very much dependent on not just the overall
> write throughput, but also the incidental timing of memtable flushes across
> multiple column families.
> The simplest way to mitigate (but not fix) this is probably to set the queue
> size to be equal to the number of column families if that is higher than the
> number of CPU cores. But that is only a mitigation because nothing prevents
> e.g. a large number of memtable flushes for a small column family under
> temporary write load, can still block a large (possibly more important)
> memtable flush for another CF. Such a shared-but-larger queue would also not
> prevent heap usage spikes resulting from some a single cf with very large
> memtable thresholds being rapidly written to, with a queue sized for lots of
> cf:s that are in practice not used. In other words, this mitigation technique
> would effectively negate the backpressure mechanism in some cases and likely
> lead to more people having OOM issues when saturating a CF with writes.
> A more involved change is to make each CF have it's own queue through which
> flushes go prior to being submitted to flushSorter, which would guarantee
> that at least one memtable can always be in pending flush state for a given
> CF. The global queue could effectively have size 1 hard-coded since the queue
> is no longer really used as if it were a queue.
> The flushWriter is unaffected since it is a separate concern that is supposed
> to be I/O bound. The current behavior would not be perfect if there is a huge
> discrepancy between memtable flush thresholds of different memtables, but it
> does not seem high priority to make a change here in practice.
> So, I propose either:
> (a) changing the flushSorter queue size to be max(num cores, num cfs)
> (b) creating a per-cf queue
> I'll volunteer to work on it as a nice bite sized change, assuming there is
> agreement on what needs to be done. Given the concerns with (a), I think (b)
> is the right solution unless it turns out to cause major complexity. Worth
> noting is that these are not performance sensitive given the low frequency of
> memtable flushes, so an extra queue:ing step should not be an issue.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
