[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-2911?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12531521
]
Knut Anders Hatlen commented on DERBY-2911:
-------------------------------------------
I don't understand why unit/T_RawStoreFactory.unit fails. Or to be more
specific, I don't understand the connection between the failure and the buffer
manager. The failure is caused by some pages not being freed (that is, marked
as free in the alloc page) on a rollback to savepoint in
T_RawStoreFactory.P042(). What's strange is that
- with Clock (old buffer manager) it works fine
- when the scan for invalid items to reuse in Clock.findFreeItem() is
commented out, it fails
- with unmodified Clock, and all test cases except P042() commented out, it
fails
So it seems like the result of P042 is somehow dependent on the contents of the
page cache (or perhaps the container cache?) when the test case starts, which
is strange both because I thought the alloc page didn't care whether a page was
in the cache or not, and because the test case creates a new container at the
beginning so that none of the pages used in the test should be present in the
cache anyway.
> Implement a buffer manager using java.util.concurrent classes
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: DERBY-2911
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-2911
> Project: Derby
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Performance, Services
> Affects Versions: 10.4.0.0
> Reporter: Knut Anders Hatlen
> Assignee: Knut Anders Hatlen
> Priority: Minor
> Attachments: d2911-1.diff, d2911-1.stat, d2911-2.diff, d2911-3.diff,
> d2911-4.diff, d2911-5.diff, d2911-6.diff, d2911-6.stat,
> d2911-entry-javadoc.diff, d2911-unused.diff, d2911-unused.stat,
> d2911perf.java, perftest6.pdf
>
>
> There are indications that the buffer manager is a bottleneck for some types
> of multi-user load. For instance, Anders Morken wrote this in a comment on
> DERBY-1704: "With a separate table and index for each thread (to remove latch
> contention and lock waits from the equation) we (...) found that
> org.apache.derby.impl.services.cache.Clock.find()/release() caused about 5
> times more contention than the synchronization in LockSet.lockObject() and
> LockSet.unlock(). That might be an indicator of where to apply the next push".
> It would be interesting to see the scalability and performance of a buffer
> manager which exploits the concurrency utilities added in Java SE 5.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
