[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-8806?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13708607#comment-13708607
]
Hadoop QA commented on HBASE-8806:
----------------------------------
{color:red}-1 overall{color}. Here are the results of testing the latest
attachment
http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12592344/hbase-8806-0.94-microbenchmark-no-dupe-rows.txt
against trunk revision .
{color:green}+1 @author{color}. The patch does not contain any @author
tags.
{color:red}-1 tests included{color}. The patch doesn't appear to include
any new or modified tests.
Please justify why no new tests are needed for this
patch.
Also please list what manual steps were performed to
verify this patch.
{color:red}-1 patch{color}. The patch command could not apply the patch.
Console output:
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-HBASE-Build/6342//console
This message is automatically generated.
> Row locks are acquired repeatedly in HRegion.doMiniBatchMutation for
> duplicate rows.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HBASE-8806
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-8806
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: regionserver
> Affects Versions: 0.94.5
> Reporter: rahul gidwani
> Priority: Critical
> Fix For: 0.98.0, 0.95.2, 0.94.10
>
> Attachments: 8806-0.94-v4.txt, 8806-0.94-v5.txt, 8806-0.94-v6.txt,
> HBASE-8806-0.94.10.patch, HBASE-8806-0.94.10-v2.patch,
> HBASE-8806-0.94.10-v3.patch, hbase-8806-0.94-microbenchmark-no-dupe-rows.txt,
> hbase-8806-0.94-microbenchmarks-dupe-rows.txt, HBASE-8806.patch,
> HBASE-8806-threadBasedRowLocks.patch,
> HBASE-8806-threadBasedRowLocks-v2.patch, row_lock_perf_results.txt
>
>
> If we already have the lock in the doMiniBatchMutation we don't need to
> re-acquire it. The solution would be to keep a cache of the rowKeys already
> locked for a miniBatchMutation and If we already have the
> rowKey in the cache, we don't repeatedly try and acquire the lock. A fix to
> this problem would be to keep a set of rows we already locked and not try to
> acquire the lock for these rows.
> We have tested this fix in our production environment and has improved
> replication performance quite a bit. We saw a replication batch go from 3+
> minutes to less than 10 seconds for batches with duplicate row keys.
> {code}
> static final int ACQUIRE_LOCK_COUNT = 0;
> @Test
> public void testRedundantRowKeys() throws Exception {
> final int batchSize = 100000;
>
> String tableName = getClass().getSimpleName();
> Configuration conf = HBaseConfiguration.create();
> conf.setClass(HConstants.REGION_IMPL, MockHRegion.class, HeapSize.class);
> MockHRegion region = (MockHRegion)
> TestHRegion.initHRegion(Bytes.toBytes(tableName), tableName, conf,
> Bytes.toBytes("a"));
> List<Pair<Mutation, Integer>> someBatch = Lists.newArrayList();
> int i = 0;
> while (i < batchSize) {
> if (i % 2 == 0) {
> someBatch.add(new Pair<Mutation, Integer>(new Put(Bytes.toBytes(0)),
> null));
> } else {
> someBatch.add(new Pair<Mutation, Integer>(new Put(Bytes.toBytes(1)),
> null));
> }
> i++;
> }
> long startTime = System.currentTimeMillis();
> region.batchMutate(someBatch.toArray(new Pair[0]));
> long endTime = System.currentTimeMillis();
> long duration = endTime - startTime;
> System.out.println("duration: " + duration + " ms");
> assertEquals(2, ACQUIRE_LOCK_COUNT);
> }
> @Override
> public Integer getLock(Integer lockid, byte[] row, boolean waitForLock)
> throws IOException {
> ACQUIRE_LOCK_COUNT++;
> return super.getLock(lockid, row, waitForLock);
> }
> {code}
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
