[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-10205?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
 ]

Yonik Seeley updated SOLR-10205:
--------------------------------
    Attachment: SOLR-10205.patch

OK, here's an update to the tests I'm using. Some changes:
- BlockCache now only tries calling cleanUp the next time through the loop 
(i.e. needs to fail to find a block first)
- only call cleanUp if map size >= number_of_blocks (as opposed to max 
configured size of the map... this makes a difference when reserved_blocks>1)
- test estimates number of queries to use in the next test round based on time 
so far
- test exits by itself after a given amount of time (1hr is what I'm testing 
with)

> Evaluate and reduce BlockCache store failures
> ---------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: SOLR-10205
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-10205
>             Project: Solr
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>      Security Level: Public(Default Security Level. Issues are Public) 
>            Reporter: Yonik Seeley
>            Assignee: Yonik Seeley
>         Attachments: SOLR-10205.patch, SOLR-10205.patch
>
>
> The BlockCache is written such that requests to cache a block 
> (BlockCache.store call) can fail, making caching less effective.  We should 
> evaluate the impact of this storage failure and potentially reduce the number 
> of storage failures.
> The implementation reserves a single block of memory.  In store, a block of 
> memory is allocated, and then a pointer is inserted into the underling map.  
> A block is only freed when the underlying map evicts the map entry.
> This means that when two store() operations are called concurrently (even 
> under low load), one can fail.  This is made worse by the fact that 
> concurrent maps typically tend to amortize the cost of eviction over many 
> keys (i.e. the actual size of the map can grow beyond the configured maximum 
> number of entries... both the older ConcurrentLinkedHashMap and newer 
> Caffeine do this).  When this is the case, store() won't be able to find a 
> free block of memory, even if there aren't any other concurrently operating 
> stores.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.15#6346)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org

Reply via email to