First of all, big big thanks to Rob, Trink and Mozilla. We've been working with Heka for about a year and it's always been a pleasure to work with. Hopefully we'll be giving a try at Hindsight in the next weeks and I'm not too worried that we'll have a smooth migration path from Heka to Hindsight. I've got one small question. You wrote that "Heka is still in use here, though, especially on our edge nodes". IIUC Hindsight doesn't have an input plugin for logs yet and since the Heka logstreamer plugin is a quite complex (and neat!) piece of code, my guess is that you will continue to use Heka for log streaming. Is this correct? Thanks! Simon
On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 7:51 PM, Rob Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I'm loooong overdue in sending out an update about the current state of > and plans for Heka. Unfortunately, what I have to share here will probably > be disappointing for many of you, and it might impact whether or not you > want to continue using it, as all signs point to Heka getting less support > and fewer updates moving forward. > > The short version is that Heka has some design flaws that make it hard to > incrementally improve it enough to meet the high throughput and reliability > goals that we were hoping to achieve. While it would be possible to do a > major overhaul of the code to resolve most of these issues, I don't have > the personal bandwidth to do that work, since most of my time is consumed > working on Mozilla's immediate data processing needs rather than general > purpose tools these days. Hindsight (https://github.com/trink/hindsight), > built around the same Lua sandbox technology as Heka, doesn't have these > issues, and internally we're using it more and more instead of Heka, so > there's no organizational imperative for me (or anyone else) to spend the > time required to overhaul the Go code base. > > Heka is still in use here, though, especially on our edge nodes, so it > will see a bit more improvement and at least a couple more releases. Most > notably, it's on my list to switch to using the most recent Lua sandbox > code, which will move most of the protobuf processing to custom C code, and > will likely improve performance as well as remove a lot of the problematic > cgo code, which is what's currently keeping us from being able to upgrade > to a recent Go version. > > Beyond that, however, Heka's future is uncertain. The code that's there > will still work, of course, but I may not be doing any further > improvements, and my ability to keep up with support requests and PRs, > already on the decline, will likely continue to wane. > > So what are the options? If you're using a significant amount of Lua based > functionality, you might consider transitioning to Hindsight. Any Lua code > that works in Heka will work in Hindsight. Hindsight is a much leaner and > more solid foundation. Hindsight has far fewer i/o plugins than Heka, > though, so for many it won't be a simple transition. > > Also, if there's someone out there (an organization, most likely) that has > a strong interest in keeping Heka's codebase alive, through funding or > coding contributions, I'd be happy to support that endeavor. Some > restrictions apply, however; the work that needs to be done to improve > Heka's foundation is not beginner level work, and my time to help is very > limited, so I'm only willing to support folks who demonstrate that they are > up to the task. Please contact me off-list if you or your organization is > interested. > > Anyone casually following along can probably stop reading here. Those of > you interested in the gory details can read on to hear more about what the > issues are and how they might be resolved. > > First, I'll say that I think there's a lot that Heka got right. The basic > composition of the pipeline (input -> split -> decode -> route -> process > -> encode -> output) seems to hit a sweet spot for composability and reuse. > The Lua sandbox, and especially the use of LPEG for text parsing and > transformation, has proven to be extremely efficient and powerful; it's the > most important and valuable part of the Heka stack. The routing > infrastructure is efficient and solid. And, perhaps most importantly, Heka > is useful; there are a lot of you out there using it to get work done. > > There was one fundamental mistake made, however, which is that we > shouldn't have used channels. There are many competing opinions about Go > channels. I'm not going to get in to whether or not they're *ever* a good > idea, but I will say unequivocally that their use as the means of pushing > messages through the Heka pipeline was a mistake, for a number of reasons. > > First, they don't perform well enough. While Heka performs many tasks > faster than some other popular tools, we've consistently hit a throughput > ceiling thanks to all of the synchronization that channels require. And > this ceiling, sadly, is generally lower than is acceptable for the amount > of data that we at Mozilla want to push through our aggregators single > system. > > Second, they make it very hard to prevent message loss. If unbuffered > channels are used everywhere, performance plummets unacceptably due to > context-switching costs. But using buffered channels means that many > messages are in flight at a time, most of which are sitting in channels > waiting to be processed. Keeping track of which messages have made it all > the way through the pipeline requires complicated coordination between > chunks of code that are conceptually quite far away from each other. > > Third, the buffered channels mean that Heka consumes much more RAM than > would be otherwise needed, since we have to pre-allocate a pool of > messages. If the pool size is too small, then Heka becomes susceptible to > deadlocks, with all of the available packs sitting in channel queues, > unable to be processed because some plugin is blocked on waiting for an > available pack. But cranking up the pool size causes Heka to use more > memory, even when it's idle. > > Hindsight avoids all of these problems by using disk queues instead of RAM > buffers between all of the processing stages. It's a bit counterintuitive, > but at high throughput performance is actually better than with RAM > buffers, because a) there's no need for synchronization locks and b) the > data is typically read quickly enough after it's written that it stays in > the disk cache. > > There's much less chance of message loss, because every plugin is holding > on to only one message in memory at a time, while using a written-to-disk > cursor file to track the current position in the disk buffer. If the plug > is pulled mid-process, some messages that were already processed might be > processed again, but nothing will be lost, and there's no need for complex > coordination between different stages of the pipeline. > > Finally, there's no need for a pool of messages. Each plugin is holding > some small number of packs (possibly as few as one) in its own memory > space, and those packs never escape that plugin's ownership. RAM usage > doesn't grow, and pool exhaustion related deadlocks are a thing of the past. > > For Heka to have a viable future, it would basically need to be updated to > work almost exactly like Hindsight. First, all of the APIs would need to be > changed to no longer refer to channels. (The fact that we exposed channels > to the APIs is another mistake we made... it's now generally frowned upon > in Go land to expose channels as part of your public APIs.) There's already > a non-channel based API for filters and outputs, but most of the plugins > haven't yet been updated to use the new API, which would need to happen. > > Then the hard work would start; a major overhaul of Heka's internals, to > switch from channel based message passing to disk queue based message > passing. The work that's been done to support disk buffering for filters > and outputs is useful, but not quite enough, because it's not scalable for > each plugin to have its own queue; the number of open file descriptors > would grow very quickly. Instead it would need to work like Hindsight, > where there's one queue that all of the inputs write to, and another that > filters write to. Each plugin reads through its specified input queue, > looking for messages that match its message matcher, writing its location > in the queue back to the shared cursors file. > > There would also be some complexity in reconciling Heka's breakdown of the > input stage into input/splitter/decoder with Hindsight's encapsulation of > all of these stages into a single sandbox. > > Ultimately I think this would be at least 2-3 months full time work for > me. I'm not the fastest coder around, but I know where the bodies are > buried, so I'd guess it would take anyone else at least as long, possibly > longer if they're not already familiar with how everything is put together. > > And that's about it. If you've gotten this far, thanks for reading. Also, > thanks to everyone who's contributed to Heka in any way, be it by code, doc > fixes, bug reports, or even just appreciation. I'm sorry for those of you > using it regularly that there's not a more stable future. > > Regards, > > -r > _______________________________________________ > Heka mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/heka >
_______________________________________________ Heka mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/heka
