Thank you all! I will start the merge to master process soon.

-Li

在 2020/2/8 下午1:15,“sammichen(陈怡)”<[email protected]> 写入:

    +1 from me too.
    
    Sammi 
    
    On 2020/2/8, 6:00 AM, "Anu Engineer" <[email protected]> wrote:
    
        +1 from me too
        
        —Anu
        
        > On Feb 7, 2020, at 1:47 PM, Siddharth Wagle 
<[email protected]> wrote:
        > 
        > Agree with Xiaoyu, +1 for the merge.
        > 
        > Thanks, Li Cheng for working on this feature and taking it to 
completion.
        > 
        > Best,
        > Sid
        > 
        >> On Fri, Feb 7, 2020 at 1:38 PM Xiaoyu Yao 
<[email protected]> wrote:
        >> 
        >> Thanks for sharing the data. Given the issues raised earlier have 
been
        >> addressed in the follow up JIRA. I'm +1 for merge.
        >> 
        >> Xiaoyu
        >> 
        >> On Fri, Feb 7, 2020 at 8:34 AM timmycheng(程力) 
<[email protected]>
        >> wrote:
        >> 
        >>> Hey all,
        >>> 
        >>> Just wanna follow up on multi-raft feature progress.  I’ve collect 
some
        >>> feedbacks from Xiaoyu, Anu and Sid (
        >>> 
        >> 
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NxCiHhn0u9BqgjuUXB8zxGtny69Qek4yTFe1QqUHiqM/edit
        >> )
        >>> and address them all in HDDS-2913. Shout out to Xiaoyu, Anu and Sid 
for
        >> the
        >>> feedbacks and help on resolving them as well. Also would like to 
know if
        >>> there are other comments and reviews.
        >>> 
        >>> We at Tencent has already deployed the multi-raft version to our 
internal
        >>> production cluster and it’s serving reasonable amount of traffic 
now. So
        >>> far there are over 16K times of write into our Ozone cluster and I
        >> compare
        >>> with the single-raft version’s performance. Both are measured in 
similar
        >>> pattern of traffic on daily basis.
        >>> 
        >>> Write finishes in:
        >>> 
        >>> Single raft
        >>> 
        >>> Multi raft
        >>> 
        >>>> 3s
        >>> 
        >>> 0.009%
        >>> 
        >>> 0.006%
        >>> 
        >>> 2s ~ 3s
        >>> 
        >>> 27.4%
        >>> 
        >>> 1.46%
        >>> 
        >>> 1s ~ 2s
        >>> 
        >>> 1.64%
        >>> 
        >>> 0.07%
        >>> 
        >>> 0.2s ~ 1s
        >>> 
        >>> 2.7%
        >>> 
        >>> 0.53%
        >>> 
        >>> < 0.2s
        >>> 
        >>> 68.2%
        >>> 
        >>> 97.9%
        >>> 
        >>> 
        >>> Our internal customer writes to ozone every day and there are 
schedules
        >>> jobs as well as on-demand jobs. Size could be from KB to GB every 
write,
        >>> but every daes y’s traffic share the same pattern. Therefore, we 
see that
        >>> multi-raft version makes ~98% of write finish within 0.2s, which is 
20%
        >>> more than what single-raft version can do. At the same time, those 
who
        >>> finishes from 2s to 3s reduces from 27.4% to 1.46%. Multi-raft has 
made
        >> our
        >>> internal cluster more stable and the latency fluctuates way less, 
which
        >> is
        >>> pretty helpful.
        >>> 
        >>> Cheers,
        >>> Li
        >>> 
        >>> 发件人: "timmycheng(程力)" <[email protected]>
        >>> 日期: 2020年1月13日 星期一 下午4:24
        >>> 收件人: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
        >>> 主题: [DISCUSS] - Merge Multi-Raft Support - HDDS-1564
        >>> 
        >>> Hey all,
        >>> 
        >>> Happy to present the multi-raft feature to ozone community (
        >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDDS-1564). This feature is to
        >>> allow every datanode to host more than 1 pipeline based on user 
config to
        >>> better utilize every datanode’s disks IO.
        >>> 
        >>> All dev work have been done and I’ve conducted performance tests in
        >>> different scenarios. Based on my testing, multi-raft ozone cluster 
can
        >> help
        >>> to make writing latency as low as 1/3 of single-raft’s one. Please 
check
        >>> the attachment in the above JIRA for test brief and more details as 
well
        >> as
        >>> the code patch.
        >>> 
        >>> I would like to use this thread to discuss about this feature and 
it’s
        >>> merge back to master.
        >>> 
        >>> -Li
        >>> 
        >> 
        
        
    
    

Reply via email to