Michael Moser created NIFI-2996:
-----------------------------------

             Summary: Processor/Service validation takes exponentially longer 
to run as the graph grows
                 Key: NIFI-2996
                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-2996
             Project: Apache NiFi
          Issue Type: Bug
          Components: Core Framework
    Affects Versions: 0.7.1, 1.0.0
            Reporter: Michael Moser
            Assignee: Michael Moser


As you add processors that reference controller services to your NiFi, the 
validation that occurs during normal UI usage increases dramatically.
When running in a cluster, I have to increase the nifi.properties 
nifi.cluster.node.read.timeout well beyond its 5 sec default timeout in order 
for the UI to work.  Eventually, simple operations in the UI take close to a 
minute to happen.

As a test, I created an SSLContextService using certs created with the 
amazingly useful nifi-toolkit.  I created a DistributedMapCacheClientService 
that references this SSLContextService.  Then I created 108 
FetchDistributedMapCache processors that reference the 
DistributedMapCacheClient service.
I used ${hostname(true)} for my FetchDistributedMapCache processor's Cache 
Entry Identifier property.

When NiFi is up with no UI connected, I noticed that the SSLContextService was 
validated 108 times and the EL hostname(true) was evaluated 216 times.  When I 
connect the UI and go through a normal status refresh cycle, the 
SSLContextService was validated 432 times and the EL hostname(true) was 
evaluated 864 times. These validations take a full second on my slowest machine.

In NiFi 0.x, the expensive REST API call is 
/nifi-api/controller/controller-services/node.

In NiFi 1.x, it appears to divide the work among REST API calls to 
/nifi-api/process-groups/UUID and 
/nifi-api/flow/process-groups/UUID/controller-services and /nifi-api/flow/status

Rather than attempting to fix StandardSSLContextService or the EL 
HostnameEvaluator, I wonder if there was a more generic approach to helping 
resolve this?




--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

Reply via email to