[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KUDU-3371?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17689587#comment-17689587
]
ASF subversion and git services commented on KUDU-3371:
-------------------------------------------------------
Commit 4883497ce072bcb5a904275662c8f855e5cbcfcb in kudu's branch
refs/heads/master from Yingchun Lai
[ https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=kudu.git;h=4883497ce ]
KUDU-3371 [fs] make LogBlockManager a base class
This patch makes LogBlockManager a base class for the newly
added LogBlockManagerNativeMeta.
FileMetaLogBlockManager is the log-backed block manager which
manages the sequential written file to store containers' metadata,
it is how we do as before.
Most of the member functions are left in the base class LogBlockManager
to avoid too large updating on existing code, I'm planning to do
that in next patches.
Change-Id: I59c1287a9539668e0c08036452bb96a3006ed356
Reviewed-on: http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/18709
Tested-by: Kudu Jenkins
Reviewed-by: Alexey Serbin <[email protected]>
> Use RocksDB to store LBM metadata
> ---------------------------------
>
> Key: KUDU-3371
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KUDU-3371
> Project: Kudu
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: fs
> Reporter: Yingchun Lai
> Priority: Major
>
> h1. Motivation
> The current LBM container use separate .data and .metadata files. The .data
> file store the real user data, we can use hole punching to reduce disk space.
> While the metadata use write protobuf serialized string to a file, in append
> only mode. Each protobuf object is a struct of BlockRecordPB:
>
> {code:java}
> message BlockRecordPB {
> required BlockIdPB block_id = 1; // int64
> required BlockRecordType op_type = 2; // CREATE or DELETE
> required uint64 timestamp_us = 3;
> optional int64 offset = 4; // Required for CREATE.
> optional int64 length = 5; // Required for CREATE.
> } {code}
> That means each object is either type of CREATE or DELETE. To mark a 'block'
> as deleted, there will be 2 objects in the metadata, one is CREATE type and
> the other is DELETE type.
> There are some weak points of current LBM metadata storage mechanism:
> h2. 1. Disk space amplification
> The metadata live blocks rate may be very low, the worst case is there is
> only 1 alive block (suppose it hasn't reach the runtime compact threshold),
> all the other thousands of blocks are dead (i.e. in pair of CREATE-DELETE).
> So the disk space amplification is very serious.
> h2. 2. Long time bootstrap
> In Kudu server bootstrap stage, it have to replay all the metadata files, to
> find out the alive blocks. In the worst case, we may replayed thousands of
> blocks in metadata, but find only a very few blocks are alive.
> It may waste much time in almost all cases, since the Kudu cluster in
> production environment always run without bootstrap with several months, the
> LBM may be very loose.
> h2. 3. Metadada compaction
> To resolve the issues above, there is a metadata compaction mechanism in LBM,
> both at runtime and bootstrap stage.
> The one at runtime will lock the container, and it's synchronous.
> The one in bootstrap stage is synchronous too, and may make the bootstrap
> time longer.
> h1. Optimization by using RocksDB
> h2. Storage design
> * RocksDB instance: one RocksDB instance per data directory.
> * Key: <container_id>.<block_id>
> * Value: the same as before, i.e. the serialized protobuf string, and only
> store for CREATE entries.
> * Put/Delete: put value to rocksdb when create block, delete it from rocksdb
> when delete block
> * Scan: happened only in bootstrap stage to retrieve all blocks
> * DeleteRange: happened only when invalidate a container
> h2. Advantages
> # Disk space amplification: There is still disk space amplification problem.
> But we can tune RocksDB to reach a balanced point, I trust in most cases,
> RocksDB is better than append only file.
> # Bootstrap time: since there are only valid blocks left in rocksdb, so it
> maybe much faster than before.
> # metadata compaction: we can leave it to rocksdb to do this work, of course
> tuning needed.
> h2. test & benchmark
> I'm trying to use RocksDB to store LBM container metadata recently, finished
> most of work now, and did some benchmark. It show that the fs module block
> read/write/delete performance is similar to or little worse than the old
> implemention, the bootstrap time may reduce several times.
> I not sure if it is worth to continue the work, or anybody know if there is
> any discussion on this topic ever.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)
