[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-11135?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13994134#comment-13994134
]
stack commented on HBASE-11135:
-------------------------------
This patch is a little slower until you get up into the high contention when it
is half the speed:
{code}
nopatch.1.1.txt:2014-05-09 19:48:37,386 INFO [main]
wal.HLogPerformanceEvaluation: Summary: threads=1, iterations=100000,
syncInterval=0 took 127.035s 787.185ops/s
nopatch.1.2.txt:2014-05-09 19:50:37,795 INFO [main]
wal.HLogPerformanceEvaluation: Summary: threads=1, iterations=100000,
syncInterval=0 took 114.834s 870.822ops/s
nopatch.1.3.txt:2014-05-09 19:52:53,660 INFO [main]
wal.HLogPerformanceEvaluation: Summary: threads=1, iterations=100000,
syncInterval=0 took 130.308s 767.413ops/s
wpatch.1.1.txt:2014-05-09 17:30:25,190 INFO [main]
wal.HLogPerformanceEvaluation: Summary: threads=1, iterations=100000,
syncInterval=0 took 132.137s 756.790ops/s
wpatch.1.2.txt:2014-05-09 17:32:42,833 INFO [main]
wal.HLogPerformanceEvaluation: Summary: threads=1, iterations=100000,
syncInterval=0 took 132.289s 755.921ops/s
wpatch.1.3.txt:2014-05-09 17:34:58,673 INFO [main]
wal.HLogPerformanceEvaluation: Summary: threads=1, iterations=100000,
syncInterval=0 took 130.434s 766.671ops/s
nopatch.3.1.txt:2014-05-09 19:55:05,481 INFO [main]
wal.HLogPerformanceEvaluation: Summary: threads=3, iterations=100000,
syncInterval=0 took 126.320s 2374.921ops/s
nopatch.3.2.txt:2014-05-09 19:57:28,185 INFO [main]
wal.HLogPerformanceEvaluation: Summary: threads=3, iterations=100000,
syncInterval=0 took 137.013s 2189.573ops/s
nopatch.3.3.txt:2014-05-09 19:59:32,166 INFO [main]
wal.HLogPerformanceEvaluation: Summary: threads=3, iterations=100000,
syncInterval=0 took 118.471s 2532.265ops/s
wpatch.3.1.txt:2014-05-09 17:36:58,489 INFO [main]
wal.HLogPerformanceEvaluation: Summary: threads=3, iterations=100000,
syncInterval=0 took 114.463s 2620.934ops/s
wpatch.3.2.txt:2014-05-09 17:39:39,187 INFO [main]
wal.HLogPerformanceEvaluation: Summary: threads=3, iterations=100000,
syncInterval=0 took 155.323s 1931.459ops/s
wpatch.3.3.txt:2014-05-09 17:41:40,454 INFO [main]
wal.HLogPerformanceEvaluation: Summary: threads=3, iterations=100000,
syncInterval=0 took 115.876s 2588.974ops/s
nopatch.5.1.txt:2014-05-09 20:01:21,396 INFO [main]
wal.HLogPerformanceEvaluation: Summary: threads=5, iterations=100000,
syncInterval=0 took 103.697s 4821.740ops/s
nopatch.5.2.txt:2014-05-09 20:03:05,134 INFO [main]
wal.HLogPerformanceEvaluation: Summary: threads=5, iterations=100000,
syncInterval=0 took 98.228s 5090.198ops/s
nopatch.5.3.txt:2014-05-09 20:04:51,957 INFO [main]
wal.HLogPerformanceEvaluation: Summary: threads=5, iterations=100000,
syncInterval=0 took 101.291s 4936.272ops/s
wpatch.5.1.txt:2014-05-09 17:43:37,261 INFO [main]
wal.HLogPerformanceEvaluation: Summary: threads=5, iterations=100000,
syncInterval=0 took 111.320s 4491.556ops/s
wpatch.5.2.txt:2014-05-09 17:45:28,071 INFO [main]
wal.HLogPerformanceEvaluation: Summary: threads=5, iterations=100000,
syncInterval=0 took 105.417s 4743.068ops/s
wpatch.5.3.txt:2014-05-09 17:47:19,337 INFO [main]
wal.HLogPerformanceEvaluation: Summary: threads=5, iterations=100000,
syncInterval=0 took 105.852s 4723.577ops/s
nopatch.10.1.txt:2014-05-09 20:07:08,696 INFO [main]
wal.HLogPerformanceEvaluation: Summary: threads=10, iterations=100000,
syncInterval=0 took 131.271s 7617.829ops/s
nopatch.10.2.txt:2014-05-09 20:09:24,856 INFO [main]
wal.HLogPerformanceEvaluation: Summary: threads=10, iterations=100000,
syncInterval=0 took 130.635s 7654.917ops/s
nopatch.10.3.txt:2014-05-09 20:11:43,358 INFO [main]
wal.HLogPerformanceEvaluation: Summary: threads=10, iterations=100000,
syncInterval=0 took 132.942s 7522.077ops/s
wpatch.10.1.txt:2014-05-09 17:49:46,955 INFO [main]
wal.HLogPerformanceEvaluation: Summary: threads=10, iterations=100000,
syncInterval=0 took 142.240s 7030.371ops/s
wpatch.10.2.txt:2014-05-09 17:52:07,756 INFO [main]
wal.HLogPerformanceEvaluation: Summary: threads=10, iterations=100000,
syncInterval=0 took 135.400s 7385.525ops/s
wpatch.10.3.txt:2014-05-09 17:54:33,216 INFO [main]
wal.HLogPerformanceEvaluation: Summary: threads=10, iterations=100000,
syncInterval=0 took 140.080s 7138.778ops/s
nopatch.50.1.txt:2014-05-09 20:14:12,700 INFO [main]
wal.HLogPerformanceEvaluation: Summary: threads=50, iterations=100000,
syncInterval=0 took 143.818s 34766.164ops/s
nopatch.50.2.txt:2014-05-09 20:16:41,113 INFO [main]
wal.HLogPerformanceEvaluation: Summary: threads=50, iterations=100000,
syncInterval=0 took 142.902s 34989.016ops/s
nopatch.50.3.txt:2014-05-09 20:19:09,663 INFO [main]
wal.HLogPerformanceEvaluation: Summary: threads=50, iterations=100000,
syncInterval=0 took 142.667s 35046.645ops/s
wpatch.50.1.txt:2014-05-09 17:57:14,739 INFO [main]
wal.HLogPerformanceEvaluation: Summary: threads=50, iterations=100000,
syncInterval=0 took 156.166s 32017.213ops/s
wpatch.50.2.txt:2014-05-09 17:59:55,556 INFO [main]
wal.HLogPerformanceEvaluation: Summary: threads=50, iterations=100000,
syncInterval=0 took 155.452s 32164.270ops/s
wpatch.50.3.txt:2014-05-09 18:02:38,522 INFO [main]
wal.HLogPerformanceEvaluation: Summary: threads=50, iterations=100000,
syncInterval=0 took 157.546s 31736.762ops/s
nopatch.200.1.txt:2014-05-09 20:22:17,858 INFO [main]
wal.HLogPerformanceEvaluation: Summary: threads=200, iterations=100000,
syncInterval=0 took 182.661s 109492.453ops/s
nopatch.200.2.txt:2014-05-09 20:25:25,797 INFO [main]
wal.HLogPerformanceEvaluation: Summary: threads=200, iterations=100000,
syncInterval=0 took 182.456s 109615.477ops/s
nopatch.200.3.txt:2014-05-09 20:28:34,084 INFO [main]
wal.HLogPerformanceEvaluation: Summary: threads=200, iterations=100000,
syncInterval=0 took 182.813s 109401.406ops/s
wpatch.200.1.txt:2014-05-09 18:07:47,814 INFO [main]
wal.HLogPerformanceEvaluation: Summary: threads=200, iterations=100000,
syncInterval=0 took 303.894s 65812.422ops/s
wpatch.200.2.txt:2014-05-09 18:12:59,591 INFO [main]
wal.HLogPerformanceEvaluation: Summary: threads=200, iterations=100000,
syncInterval=0 took 306.374s 65279.691ops/s
wpatch.200.3.txt:2014-05-09 18:18:08,532 INFO [main]
wal.HLogPerformanceEvaluation: Summary: threads=200, iterations=100000,
syncInterval=0 took 303.555s 65885.922ops/s
{code}
Let me play w/ doing original idea of two ring buffers -- a fast, front one and
then a slow back one to do appends and syncs.
> Change region sequenceid generation so happens earlier in the append cycle
> rather than just before added to file
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HBASE-11135
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-11135
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Components: wal
> Reporter: stack
> Assignee: stack
> Attachments: 11135.wip.txt, 11135v2.txt, 11135v5.txt
>
>
> Currently we assign the region edit/sequence id just before we put it in the
> WAL. We do it in the single thread that feeds from the ring buffer. Doing
> it at this point, we can ensure order, that the edits will be in the file in
> accordance w/ the ordering of the region sequence id.
> But the point at which region sequence id is assigned an edit is deep down in
> the WAL system and there is a lag between our putting an edit into the WAL
> system and the edit actually getting its edit/sequence id.
> This lag -- "late-binding" -- complicates the unification of mvcc and region
> sequence id, especially around async WAL writes (and, related, for no-WAL
> writes) -- the parent for this issue (For async, how you get the edit id in
> our system when the threads have all gone home -- unless you make them wait?)
> Chatting w/ Jeffrey Zhong yesterday, we came up with a crazypants means of
> getting the region sequence id near-immediately. We'll run two ringbuffers.
> The first will mesh all handler threads and the consumer will generate ids
> (we will have order on other side of this first ring buffer), and then if
> async or no sync, we will just let the threads return ... updating mvcc just
> before we let them go. All other calls will go up on to the second ring
> buffer to be serviced as now (batching, distribution out among the sync'ing
> threads). The first rb will have no friction and should turn at fast rates
> compared to the second. There should not be noticeable slowdown nor do I
> foresee this refactor intefering w/ our multi-WAL plans.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)
