[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-6612?focusedWorklogId=207936&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:worklog-tabpanel#worklog-207936
]
ASF GitHub Bot logged work on BEAM-6612:
----------------------------------------
Author: ASF GitHub Bot
Created on: 05/Mar/19 18:13
Start Date: 05/Mar/19 18:13
Worklog Time Spent: 10m
Work Description: kennknowles commented on pull request #7895:
[BEAM-6612] Improve java SDK performance by using a LinkedBlockingQueue in
QueueingBeamFnDataClient
URL: https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/7895#discussion_r262619128
##########
File path:
sdks/java/fn-execution/src/main/java/org/apache/beam/sdk/fn/data/CompletableFutureInboundDataClient.java
##########
@@ -65,6 +65,8 @@ public void complete() {
@Override
public void fail(Throwable t) {
- future.completeExceptionally(t);
+ // Use obtrudeException instead of CompleteExceptionally, forcing any
future calls to .get()
Review comment:
Good catch. I did not realize that standard future behavior required this
other function :-/
----------------------------------------------------------------
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
Issue Time Tracking
-------------------
Worklog Id: (was: 207936)
Time Spent: 1.5h (was: 1h 20m)
> PerformanceRegression in QueueingBeamFnDataClient
> -------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: BEAM-6612
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-6612
> Project: Beam
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Components: java-fn-execution
> Reporter: Alex Amato
> Assignee: Alex Amato
> Priority: Major
> Labels: triaged
> Time Spent: 1.5h
> Remaining Estimate: 0h
>
> Remove QueueingBeamFnDataClient, which made process() calls all run on the
> same thread.
> [~lcwik] and I came up with this design thinking that it was required to
> process the bundle in parallel anyways, and we would have good performance.
> However after speaking to Ken, there is no requirement for a bundle or key to
> be processed in parallel. Elements are either iterables or single elements
> which defines the needs for processing a group of elements on the same thread.
> Simply performing this change will lead to the following issues:
> (1) MetricsContainerImpl and MetricsContainer are not thread safe, so when
> the process() functions enter the metric container context, they will be
> accessing an thread-unsafe collection in parallel
> (2) An ExecutionStateTracker will be needed in every thread, So we will need
> to
> create an instance and activate it in every GrpC thread which receives a new
> element.
> (Will this get sampled properly, since the trackers will be short lived).
> (3) The SimpleExecutionStates being used will need to be thread safe as well?
> I don't think so, because I don't think that the ExecutionStateSampler
> invokes them in parallel.
>
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
