[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-27896?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17727584#comment-17727584
]
Bryan Beaudreault commented on HBASE-27896:
-------------------------------------------
Oh sorry, I see what you are saying. I had the logic reversed in my original
description. noReadahead true passes 0, false passes -1. But the above applies
otherwise.
> Disable hdfs readahead for pread reads
> --------------------------------------
>
> Key: HBASE-27896
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-27896
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Bryan Beaudreault
> Priority: Major
>
> In https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-17914, a flag was introduced
> {{{}hbase.store.reader.no-readahead{}}}. The default is false, so readahead
> is enabled. This flag is used for creating the default store reader (i.e. the
> one used by PREAD reads). Stream readers don't use this flag, instead they
> always pass -1.
> When that flag is false, we pass a readahead value of 0 to
> FSDataInputStream.setReadahead. When the flag is true, we pass -1 which
> triggers hdfs default behavior. The default behavior is to use a readahead of
> 4MB.
> It seems to me that we don't want readahead for PREAD reads, and especially
> not such a large readahead. Our default block size is 64kb, which is much
> smaller than that. A PREAD read is not likely to do sequential IO, so not
> likely to utilize the cached readahead buffer.
> I set no-readahead to true in a few of our clusters and in each case saw a
> massive reduction in disk IO and thus increase in throughput. I load tested
> this in a test cluster which does fully random reads of ~300 byte rows on a
> dataset which is 20x larger than memory. The load test was able to achieve
> nearly double the throughput.
> As a follow-on, we might consider tuning the readahead for STREAM reads. 4mb
> seems way too big for many common workloads.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)
