Merged the HBASE-21879 back to master branch, Thanks all. On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 10:40 AM OpenInx <open...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 >> > > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > > >> >> > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > >> >> > > >> > > > >> >> > >> > > > >> >> >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> >
