[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-9666?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15216231#comment-15216231
]
Björn Hegerfors commented on CASSANDRA-9666:
--------------------------------------------
So, I also think that the tiering should have some value, though I lack
concrete benchmarks to show it.
That said, the problems that DTCS still suffers from with the latest patches,
according to what's being said here, would perhaps be best attacked by a
breaking change. So I see an opportunity to do something about it, whether the
name stays or changes to TWCS (I kind of like that name).
For example, what's holding back CASSANDRA-11056 is a fear that the transition
won't be completely smooth. The names of the options in DTCS is something that
I would like to change towards what TWCS has. max_window_size has become more
central than base_time_seconds. Renaming max_window_size to window_size and
base_time_seconds to min_window_size (or even more obscure, or even removing
the option) should be better. If we require user interaction anyway, then
applying CASSANDRA-11056 while we're at it would be easier.
Also, the idea in CASSANDRA-9013 and CASSANDRA-11407 and the recent recent dev@
mail thread, shows another way of doing the tiering that would arguably be
easier to understand. Combine these suggestions, and we end up expressing the
windowing forwards in time, rather than backwards. DTCS was always about
"what's the size of the smallest window", "how many of those make a larger
window" and "how long do we wait until we stop compacting a value". Instead, we
would get the TWCS way, which people seem to like more, where the main question
is "how large are the windows that we put the values into". And beyond that
there's this ramp down in window sizes just towards the end to accommodate for
very write heavy workloads, but options controlling that part a more of a
detail, like the min_sstable_size option of STCS.
Is something like this what people really want? I.e. TWCS, but with tiering
near the end of the timeline, that users don't need to know or care about?
> Provide an alternative to DTCS
> ------------------------------
>
> Key: CASSANDRA-9666
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-9666
> Project: Cassandra
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Jeff Jirsa
> Assignee: Jeff Jirsa
> Fix For: 2.1.x, 2.2.x
>
> Attachments: dtcs-twcs-io.png, dtcs-twcs-load.png
>
>
> DTCS is great for time series data, but it comes with caveats that make it
> difficult to use in production (typical operator behaviors such as bootstrap,
> removenode, and repair have MAJOR caveats as they relate to
> max_sstable_age_days, and hints/read repair break the selection algorithm).
> I'm proposing an alternative, TimeWindowCompactionStrategy, that sacrifices
> the tiered nature of DTCS in order to address some of DTCS' operational
> shortcomings. I believe it is necessary to propose an alternative rather than
> simply adjusting DTCS, because it fundamentally removes the tiered nature in
> order to remove the parameter max_sstable_age_days - the result is very very
> different, even if it is heavily inspired by DTCS.
> Specifically, rather than creating a number of windows of ever increasing
> sizes, this strategy allows an operator to choose the window size, compact
> with STCS within the first window of that size, and aggressive compact down
> to a single sstable once that window is no longer current. The window size is
> a combination of unit (minutes, hours, days) and size (1, etc), such that an
> operator can expect all data using a block of that size to be compacted
> together (that is, if your unit is hours, and size is 6, you will create
> roughly 4 sstables per day, each one containing roughly 6 hours of data).
> The result addresses a number of the problems with
> DateTieredCompactionStrategy:
> - At the present time, DTCS’s first window is compacted using an unusual
> selection criteria, which prefers files with earlier timestamps, but ignores
> sizes. In TimeWindowCompactionStrategy, the first window data will be
> compacted with the well tested, fast, reliable STCS. All STCS options can be
> passed to TimeWindowCompactionStrategy to configure the first window’s
> compaction behavior.
> - HintedHandoff may put old data in new sstables, but it will have little
> impact other than slightly reduced efficiency (sstables will cover a wider
> range, but the old timestamps will not impact sstable selection criteria
> during compaction)
> - ReadRepair may put old data in new sstables, but it will have little impact
> other than slightly reduced efficiency (sstables will cover a wider range,
> but the old timestamps will not impact sstable selection criteria during
> compaction)
> - Small, old sstables resulting from streams of any kind will be swiftly and
> aggressively compacted with the other sstables matching their similar
> maxTimestamp, without causing sstables in neighboring windows to grow in size.
> - The configuration options are explicit and straightforward - the tuning
> parameters leave little room for error. The window is set in common, easily
> understandable terms such as “12 hours”, “1 Day”, “30 days”. The
> minute/hour/day options are granular enough for users keeping data for hours,
> and users keeping data for years.
> - There is no explicitly configurable max sstable age, though sstables will
> naturally stop compacting once new data is written in that window.
> - Streaming operations can create sstables with old timestamps, and they'll
> naturally be joined together with sstables in the same time bucket. This is
> true for bootstrap/repair/sstableloader/removenode.
> - It remains true that if old data and new data is written into the memtable
> at the same time, the resulting sstables will be treated as if they were new
> sstables, however, that no longer negatively impacts the compaction
> strategy’s selection criteria for older windows.
> Patch provided for :
> - 2.1: https://github.com/jeffjirsa/cassandra/commits/twcs-2.1
> - 2.2: https://github.com/jeffjirsa/cassandra/commits/twcs-2.2
> - trunk (post-8099): https://github.com/jeffjirsa/cassandra/commits/twcs
> Rebased, force-pushed July 18, with bug fixes for estimated pending
> compactions and potential starvation if more than min_threshold tables
> existed in current window but STCS did not consider them viable candidates
> Rebased, force-pushed Aug 20 to bring in relevant logic from CASSANDRA-9882
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
