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 <rmil...@mozilla.com
<mailto:rmil...@mozilla.com>> 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
Heka@mozilla.org <mailto:Heka@mozilla.org>
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/heka
