Now we have four +1 votes ( all binding). Will wait a day before the merge, if no objections I will do the merge. Thanks all for reviewing & checking.
On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 11:05 PM Anoop John <anoop.hb...@gmail.com> wrote: > +1 for master merge > > Anoop > > On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 9:47 AM ramkrishna vasudevan < > ramkrishna.s.vasude...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > +1 to merge to master. Great job Zheng > > > > On Sat, Jun 22, 2019, 8:41 AM Guanghao Zhang <zghao...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > +1 for merge this to master. > > > > > > OpenInx <open...@gmail.com> 于2019年6月21日周五 下午2:56写道： > > > > > > > Update: > > > > > > > > The ByteBuffer pread backport is under reviewing now. > > > > https://github.com/apache/hadoop/pull/997 > > > > > > > > As Hadoop team said, the Hadoop 2.8 will be EOL soon, so our HDFS > team > > > > will backport this patch to > > > > branch-2 & branch-2.9, we may need to upgrade the hadoop > dependencies > > > from > > > > 2.8.5 to 2.9.3 in future. > > > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 10:41 PM OpenInx <open...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Thanks for your reviewing and flaky test checking, Duo. > > > > > Will file a separate issue to address your comment if necessary. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 9:55 PM 张铎(Duo Zhang) < > palomino...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> +1 from me. > > > > >> > > > > >> Left a few comments on github PR, not big problems. And the flaky > > > > >> dashboard > > > > >> is pretty good. > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > https://builds.apache.org/job/HBASE-Find-Flaky-Tests/job/HBASE-21879/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/dashboard.html > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> The TestConnectionImplementation was also failing on master, and > was > > > > fixed > > > > >> after merging back HBASE-21512. > > > > >> > > > > >> 张铎(Duo Zhang) <palomino...@gmail.com> 于2019年6月18日周二 下午9:48写道： > > > > >> > > > > >> > Good. Will take a look soon. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > OpenInx <open...@gmail.com> 于2019年6月18日周二 下午9:41写道： > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > Could please open a PR, just like what I have done for > > > HBASE-21512, > > > > >> so > > > > >> >> that others could have a overall view on the modified code? > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> OK, created a PR for this: > > > https://github.com/apache/hbase/pull/320 > > > > >> >> Thanks for your suggestion, Duo. > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 9:24 PM 张铎(Duo Zhang) < > > > palomino...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > >> >> wrote: > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > The performance number is great. > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > Could please open a PR, just like what I have done for > > > HBASE-21512, > > > > >> so > > > > >> >> that > > > > >> >> > others could have a overall view on the modified code? > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > Thanks. > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > OpenInx <open...@gmail.com> 于2019年6月18日周二 下午6:58写道： > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > BTW, when testing this branch, we found some performance > > > issues > > > > >> >> about > > > > >> >> > > HDFS Client: > > > > >> >> > > 1. we reduced the DFS client's heap allocation from 45% to > > 27% > > > > >> >> > > in HDFS-14535 [1]; > > > > >> >> > > 2. we also increased get throughput by 17.8% in disabled > > block > > > > >> cache > > > > >> >> > case > > > > >> >> > > in HDFS-14541[2]. > > > > >> >> > > In theory, it should also helps a lot (especially > > > p99/p999) > > > > >> even > > > > >> >> if > > > > >> >> > RS > > > > >> >> > > has a high cacheHitRatio. > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > I think the next HDFS 2.8 release will include those > patches, > > > > >> they're > > > > >> >> > very > > > > >> >> > > good points for our > > > > >> >> > > HBase performance. > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > [1]. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-14535 > > > > >> >> > > [2]. > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-14541?focusedCommentId=16866472&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels%3Acomment-tabpanel#comment-16866472 > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > Thanks. > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 12:05 PM OpenInx < > open...@gmail.com> > > > > >> wrote: > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > The HBASE-21879 has lots of changes: 123 files changed, > > 5833 > > > > >> >> > > > insertions(+), 3015 deletions(-). > > > > >> >> > > > Currently we developed this issue based on master branch, > > and > > > > >> >> expect to > > > > >> >> > > > release it in future HBase3.x. > > > > >> >> > > > Of course, if branch-2 want this feature we can do the > > > > backport, > > > > >> >> should > > > > >> >> > > > have some conflicts now but I > > > > >> >> > > > don't think it would be hard to fix because I believe the > > > > >> branch-2 > > > > >> >> > > > shouldn't have so much diff with master now > > > > >> >> > > > (at least in read path). > > > > >> >> > > > The first priority thing for now, I think it would be > > > merging > > > > >> the > > > > >> >> > > > HBASE-21879 branch to master branch > > > > >> >> > > > before diverging. After that, I can do the backport. > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > Thanks for your suggestion, Guanghao ! > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 11:39 AM Guanghao Zhang < > > > > >> zghao...@gmail.com > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > wrote: > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> This is a improvement not a new feature? So backport to > > > > >> branch-2, > > > > >> >> too? > > > > >> >> > > >> > > > > >> >> > > >> OpenInx <open...@gmail.com> 于2019年6月17日周一 下午2:45写道： > > > > >> >> > > >> > > > > >> >> > > >> > Dear HBase dev: > > > > >> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > In HBASE-21879[1], we redesigned the offheap read > path: > > > read > > > > >> the > > > > >> >> > > >> HFileBlock > > > > >> >> > > >> > from HDFS to pooled offheap > > > > >> >> > > >> > ByteBuffers directly, while before HBASE-21879 we just > > > read > > > > >> the > > > > >> >> > > >> HFileBlock > > > > >> >> > > >> > to heap which would still lead > > > > >> >> > > >> > to high GC pressure. > > > > >> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > After few months of development and testing, all > > subtasks > > > > have > > > > >> >> been > > > > >> >> > > >> > resovled now except the HBASE-21946[2] > > > > >> >> > > >> > (It depends on HDFS-14483[3] and our HDFS teams are > > > working > > > > on > > > > >> >> this, > > > > >> >> > > we > > > > >> >> > > >> > expect the HDFS-14483 to be included > > > > >> >> > > >> > in hadoop 2.8.6 and after that the HBASE-21946 will > get > > > > >> >> resolved). > > > > >> >> > we > > > > >> >> > > >> think > > > > >> >> > > >> > the feature is stable enough now and it's > > > > >> >> > > >> > time to merge branch HBASE-21879 back to master now. > > > > >> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > We have designed 3 test cases to prove the performance > > > > >> improvment > > > > >> >> > with > > > > >> >> > > >> > HBASE-21879: > > > > >> >> > > >> > 1. Disabled BlockCache, which means the cacheHitRatio > is > > > 0%; > > > > >> >> > > >> > 2. CacheHitRatio~65%; > > > > >> >> > > >> > 3. CachehHitRatio~100%; > > > > >> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > In our performance results[4], we can see that: the > > case#1 > > > > >> have > > > > >> >> an > > > > >> >> > > great > > > > >> >> > > >> > performance improvement > > > > >> >> > > >> > ( > > > > >> >> > > >> > *throughput increased about 17%, heap allocation > > decreased > > > > >> about > > > > >> >> > 95%, > > > > >> >> > > >> Young > > > > >> >> > > >> > generaion size decreased about 81.7%*), that's because > > > after > > > > >> >> > > HBASE-21879 > > > > >> >> > > >> > all reads will allocate from pooled offheap > bytebuffers > > > > >> >> > > >> > and almost no heap allocation, while before > HBASE-21879 > > > the > > > > >> read > > > > >> >> > path > > > > >> >> > > >> will > > > > >> >> > > >> > create so many heap allocations. > > > > >> >> > > >> > On the other hand, from the testing results of case#2 > > and > > > > >> case#3 > > > > >> >> we > > > > >> >> > > can > > > > >> >> > > >> > also see that: > > > > >> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > *As the cacheHitRatioincreasing, the difference > between > > > > >> >> > > >> before-HBASE-21879 > > > > >> >> > > >> > and after-HBASE-21879 will decrease, when > cacheHitRatio > > is > > > > >> 100%, > > > > >> >> > they > > > > >> >> > > >> > almost have no much difference in both throughput and > > > > >> latency.* > > > > >> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > For more details please see the document[4]. Thanks > > > > >> >> > > >> > Anoop/Ram/DuoZhang/Stack/GuanghaoZhang very much > > > > >> >> > > >> > for your meticulous work (Suggession, discussion, > patch > > > > >> >> reviewing, > > > > >> >> > doc > > > > >> >> > > >> > reviewing etc). > > > > >> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > Please vote > > > > >> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > [] +1 > > > > >> >> > > >> > [] +0/-0 > > > > >> >> > > >> > [] -1 Do not merge the branch back because... > > > > >> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > Thanks. Any suggestions are welcomed. > > > > >> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21879 > > > > >> >> > > >> > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21946 > > > > >> >> > > >> > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-14483 > > > > >> >> > > >> > [4] > > > > >> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xSy9axGxafoH-Qc17zbD2Bd--rWjjI00xTWQZ8ZwI_E > > > > >> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
