[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-8665?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13671155#comment-13671155
]
Elliott Clark commented on HBASE-8665:
--------------------------------------
bq. If blocked store comes into a queue full of non-blocked stores why should
we bump them? And how much.
I was suggesting bumping the priority instead of queueing another. Bumping the
compaction request to what would currently be computed seems reasonable.
bq.3) Additionally if we pre-select in advance we simply end up with
inefficient compactions, for example in this case we could have compacted 6
small files in one go, but would have ended up compacting 3 and 3 if it spent
less time in the queue.
In this case pre-selecting doesn't seem to be a bad thing. Prioritizing a fast
compaction over being a little more efficient seems like a trade off that most
people would want. So since current implementation biases towards what I would
expect users to want maybe we shouldn't change that until we can put those
smarts into the compaction selection (plumbing reason the compaction was
requested into selection).
> bad compaction priority behavior in queue can cause store to be blocked
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HBASE-8665
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-8665
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: Bug
> Reporter: Sergey Shelukhin
> Assignee: Sergey Shelukhin
>
> Note that this can be solved by bumping up the number of compaction threads
> but still it seems like this priority "inversion" should be dealt with.
> There's a store with 1 big file and 3 flushes (1 2 3 4) sitting around and
> minding its own business when it decides to compact. Compaction (2 3 4) is
> created and put in queue, it's low priority, so it doesn't get out of the
> queue for some time - other stores are compacting. Meanwhile more files are
> flushed and at (1 2 3 4 5 6 7) it decides to compact (5 6 7). This compaction
> now has higher priority than the first one. After that if the load is high it
> enters vicious cycle of compacting and compacting files as they arrive, with
> store being blocked on and off, with the (2 3 4) compaction staying in queue
> for up to ~20 minutes (that I've seen).
> I wonder why we do thing thing where we queue compaction and compact
> separately. Perhaps we should take snapshot of all store priorities, then do
> select in order and execute the first compaction we find. This will need
> starvation safeguard too but should probably be better.
> Btw, exploring compaction policy may be more prone to this, as it can select
> files from the middle, not just beginning, which, given the treatment of
> already selected files that was not changed from the old ratio-based one (all
> files with lower seqNums than the ones selected are also ineligible for
> further selection), will make more files ineligible (e.g. imagine with 10
> blocking files, with 8 present (1-8), (6 7 8) being selected and getting
> stuck). Today I see the case that would also apply to old policy, but
> yesterday I saw file distribution something like this: 4,5g, 2,1g, 295,9m,
> 113,3m, 68,0m, 67,8m, 1,1g, 295,1m, 100,4m, unfortunately w/o enough logs to
> figure out how it resulted.
--
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
