Re: JENA Loader Benchmarks

Sat, 22 Jun 2019 15:48:29 -0700 



On 20/06/2019 16:01, Marco Neumann wrote:

quick update here on loader performance. Did a modest (in terms of cost)
hardware upgrade of one of the dedicated data processors with a faster CPU
and faster NVme SSD drive and was able to almost half our load times. Very
satisfied with the HW upgrade and TDB2 loader performance. VM's don't seem
to work well for us in combination with TDB.



My experience has been significant variation across different VM types. 
My assumption is the form of virtualization matters.



I had access to an AWS i3.8xlarge for a short while which had local NVMe 
SSDs and got very good performance:


500m            TDB2    2,362s  39m 22s         218,460 TPS
1 billion       TDB2    5,164s  1h 26m 04s      200,100 TPS

(this is a single graph dataset)

i3 are "Storage optimized"


The TDB2 loader is multithreaded and each thread is working on a 
different indexes so the access patterns are jumping around all over the 
place both because the non-primary index is, in effect at scale, 
randomly accessed, and because multiple indexes are updating at the same 
time.


    Andy



On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 11:56 PM Marco Neumann <marco.neum...@gmail.com>
wrote:


absolutely it does, preferably NVMe SSD. tdbloaders are almost a showcase
themselves for good up-to-date hardware..

if possible I'd like to load the wikidata dataset* at at some point to see
where 57GB fits in terms of tdb. The wikidata team is currently looking at
new solutions that can go beyond blazegraph. And I get the impression that
they have not yet actively considered to give jena tdb try.

https://dumps.wikimedia.org/wikidatawiki/entities/


On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 11:47 PM Martynas Jusevičius <
marty...@atomgraph.com> wrote:


What about SSD disks, don't they make a difference?

On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 12:36 AM Marco Neumann <marco.neum...@gmail.com>
wrote:


that did the trick Andy, very good might be a good idea to add this to

the

distribution in jena-log4j.properties

I am getting these numbers for a midsize dedicated server, very nice
numbers indeed Andy. well done!

00:24:53 INFO  loader               :: Loader = LoaderPhased
00:24:53 INFO  loader               :: Start:
../../public_html/lotico.ttl.gz
00:24:55 INFO  loader               :: Add: 500,000 lotico.ttl.gz

(Batch:

237,755 / Avg: 237,755)
00:24:56 INFO  loader               :: Add: 1,000,000 lotico.ttl.gz

(Batch:

305,250 / Avg: 267,308)
00:24:58 INFO  loader               :: Add: 1,500,000 lotico.ttl.gz

(Batch:

313,087 / Avg: 281,004)
00:25:00 INFO  loader               :: Add: 2,000,000 lotico.ttl.gz

(Batch:

328,299 / Avg: 291,502)
00:25:01 INFO  loader               :: Add: 2,500,000 lotico.ttl.gz

(Batch:

341,763 / Avg: 300,336)
00:25:03 INFO  loader               :: Add: 3,000,000 lotico.ttl.gz

(Batch:

337,381 / Avg: 305,935)
00:25:04 INFO  loader               :: Add: 3,500,000 lotico.ttl.gz

(Batch:

318,877 / Avg: 307,719)
00:25:06 INFO  loader               :: Add: 4,000,000 lotico.ttl.gz

(Batch:

295,857 / Avg: 306,184)
00:25:07 INFO  loader               :: Add: 4,500,000 lotico.ttl.gz

(Batch:

327,225 / Avg: 308,388)
00:25:09 INFO  loader               :: Add: 5,000,000 lotico.ttl.gz

(Batch:

349,406 / Avg: 312,051)
00:25:09 INFO  loader               ::   Elapsed: 16.02 seconds

[2019/06/15

00:25:09 CEST]
00:25:11 INFO  loader               :: Add: 5,500,000 lotico.ttl.gz

(Batch:

285,062 / Avg: 309,388)
00:25:13 INFO  loader               :: Add: 6,000,000 lotico.ttl.gz

(Batch:

203,665 / Avg: 296,559)
00:25:16 INFO  loader               :: Add: 6,500,000 lotico.ttl.gz

(Batch:

189,393 / Avg: 284,190)

on another machine that sits in the Azure infrastructure somewhere it
tdbloader doesn't look as good, even with decent hardware it seems to

die a

slow death of memory exhaustion at 16GB. started off with 70kT/s and is

now

down to 17kT/s and still going.

lesson learned big iron and big memory is the way to go with Jena
tdbloaders.




On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 10:53 PM Andy Seaborne <a...@apache.org> wrote:


These messages are logged (to logger "org.apache.jena.tdb2.loader") -

do

you have log4j.proprties in the current working directory?

Do you get any output?

INFO  Loader = LoaderParallel
INFO  Start: /home/afs/Datasets/BSBM/bsbm-5m.nt.gz
INFO  Add: 500,000 bsbm-5m.nt.gz (Batch: 134,770 / Avg: 134,770)
INFO  Add: 1,000,000 bsbm-5m.nt.gz (Batch: 189,753 / Avg: 157,604)
INFO  Add: 1,500,000 bsbm-5m.nt.gz (Batch: 205,676 / Avg: 170,920)
INFO  Add: 2,000,000 bsbm-5m.nt.gz (Batch: 204,248 / Avg: 178,189)
INFO  Add: 2,500,000 bsbm-5m.nt.gz (Batch: 202,101 / Avg: 182,508)
INFO  Add: 3,000,000 bsbm-5m.nt.gz (Batch: 206,953 / Avg: 186,173)
INFO  Add: 3,500,000 bsbm-5m.nt.gz (Batch: 183,621 / Avg: 185,804)
INFO  Add: 4,000,000 bsbm-5m.nt.gz (Batch: 151,423 / Avg: 180,676)
INFO  Add: 4,500,000 bsbm-5m.nt.gz (Batch: 152,765 / Avg: 177,081)
INFO  Add: 5,000,000 bsbm-5m.nt.gz (Batch: 158,881 / Avg: 175,076)
INFO    Elapsed: 28.56 seconds [2019/06/14 22:51:37 BST]
INFO  Finished: /home/afs/Datasets/BSBM/bsbm-5m.nt.gz: 5,000,599

tuples

in 28.63s (Avg: 174,644)
INFO  Finish - index SPO
INFO  Finish - index POS
INFO  Finish - index OSP
INFO  Time = 35.572 seconds : Triples = 5,000,599 : Rate = 140,577 /s


There is pause after the first "Finished:" - this is finished data in,
the index threads are still running and the pause comes from flush to

disk.


      Andy

On 14/06/2019 20:16, Marco Neumann wrote:

let me fire up one of the big machines to see what I will get there.
currently I have no info display during load with tdb2.tdbloader .

if -v

is

specified I get some extra info but no load info.

On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 8:03 PM Andy Seaborne <a...@apache.org>

wrote:





On 14/06/2019 18:13, Marco Neumann wrote:

I am collecting jena loader benchmarks. if you have results

please post

them directly.

http://www.lotico.com/index.php/JENA_Loader_Benchmarks


tdb2.tdbloader has variations controlled by --loader.

--loader=
Loader to use: 'basic', 'phased' (default), 'sequential',

'parallel' or

'light'

"basic" is a super naive parser-add triple loop - it used if a

loader

can't cope with an already loaded database.

"phased" is a balanced, does not saturate the machine loader. Some
parallelism.

"sequential" is the tdbloader algorithm for TDB2, more for

reference.


"parallel" is as much parallelism as it wants. (5 for triples,

more for

quads)

"light" is two threaded. Slightly ligther than "phased".

See LoaderPlans.


On a linux machine I am using "time" to collect data.

Is there a flag on tdb2.tdbloader to report time and triples per

second?


I have noticed that storage space use for tdbloader2 is

significantly

smaller on disk compared to tdbloader and tdb2.tdbloader. Is

there a

straight forward explanation here?











--


---
Marco Neumann
KONA





--


---
Marco Neumann
KONA



























					Reply via email to