Denis, as I understood, there is and idea to exclude only rebalanced partition(s) data. All other data will go to the WAL.
Ilya, please correct me if I'm wrong. пт, 23 мар. 2018 г. в 22:15, Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org>: > Ilya, > > That's a decent boost (5-20%) even having WAL enabled. Not sure that we > should stake on the WAL "off" mode here because if the whole cluster goes > down, it's then the data consistency is questionable. As an architect, I > wouldn't disable WAL for the sake of rebalancing; it's too risky. > > If you agree, then let's create the IEP. This way it will be easier to > track this endeavor. BTW, are you already ready to release any > optimizations in 2.5 that is being discussed in a separate thread? > > -- > Denis > > > > On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 6:37 AM, Ilya Lantukh <ilant...@gridgain.com> > wrote: > > > Denis, > > > > > - Don't you want to aggregate the tickets under an IEP? > > Yes, I think so. > > > > > - Does it mean we're going to update our B+Tree implementation? Any > ideas > > how risky it is? > > One of tickets that I created ( > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7935) involves B+Tree > > modification, but I am not planning to do it in the nearest future. It > > shouldn't affect existing tree operations, only introduce new ones > (putAll, > > invokeAll, removeAll). > > > > > - Any chance you had a prototype that shows performance optimizations > the > > approach you are suggesting to take? > > I have a prototype for simplest improvements (https://issues.apache.org/ > > jira/browse/IGNITE-8019 & https://issues.apache.org/ > > jira/browse/IGNITE-8018) > > - together they increase throughput by 5-20%, depending on configuration > > and environment. Also, I've tested different WAL modes - switching from > > LOG_ONLY to NONE gives over 100% boost - this is what I expect from > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8017. > > > > On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 9:48 PM, Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > Ilya, > > > > > > That's outstanding research and summary. Thanks for spending your time > on > > > this. > > > > > > Not sure I have enough expertise to challenge your approach, but it > > sounds > > > 100% reasonable to me. As side notes: > > > > > > - Don't you want to aggregate the tickets under an IEP? > > > - Does it mean we're going to update our B+Tree implementation? Any > > > ideas how risky it is? > > > - Any chance you had a prototype that shows performance > optimizations > > of > > > the approach you are suggesting to take? > > > > > > -- > > > Denis > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 8:38 AM, Ilya Lantukh <ilant...@gridgain.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Igniters, > > > > > > > > I've spent some time analyzing performance of rebalancing process. > The > > > > initial goal was to understand, what limits it's throughput, because > it > > > is > > > > significantly slower than network and storage device can > theoretically > > > > handle. > > > > > > > > Turns out, our current implementation has a number of issues caused > by > > a > > > > single fundamental problem. > > > > > > > > During rebalance data is sent in batches called > > > > GridDhtPartitionSupplyMessages. Batch size is configurable, default > > > value > > > > is 512KB, which could mean thousands of key-value pairs. However, we > > > don't > > > > take any advantage over this fact and process each entry > independently: > > > > - checkpointReadLock is acquired multiple times for every entry, > > leading > > > to > > > > unnecessary contention - this is clearly a bug; > > > > - for each entry we write (and fsync, if configuration assumes it) a > > > > separate WAL record - so, if batch contains N entries, we might end > up > > > > doing N fsyncs; > > > > - adding every entry into CacheDataStore also happens completely > > > > independently. It means, we will traverse and modify each index tree > N > > > > times, we will allocate space in FreeList N times and we will have to > > > > additionally store in WAL O(N*log(N)) page delta records. > > > > > > > > I've created a few tickets in JIRA with very different levels of > scale > > > and > > > > complexity. > > > > > > > > Ways to reduce impact of independent processing: > > > > - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8019 - aforementioned > > > bug, > > > > causing contention on checkpointReadLock; > > > > - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8018 - inefficiency > in > > > > GridCacheMapEntry implementation; > > > > - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8017 - automatically > > > > disable > > > > WAL during preloading. > > > > > > > > Ways to solve problem on more global level: > > > > - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7935 - a ticket to > > > > introduce > > > > batch modification; > > > > - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8020 - complete > > redesign > > > of > > > > rebalancing process for persistent caches, based on file transfer. > > > > > > > > Everyone is welcome to criticize above ideas, suggest new ones or > > > > participate in implementation. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Best regards, > > > > Ilya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Best regards, > > Ilya > > >
