On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 6:28 AM, Quanlong Huang <huang_quanl...@126.com>
wrote:
> Hi Todd and William,
>
> I'm really appreciated for your help and sorry for my late reply. I was
> going to reply with some follow-up questions but was assigned to focus some
> other works... Now I'm back to this work.
>
> The design docs are really helpful. Now I understand the flush and
> compaction. I think we can add a link to these design docs in the kudu
> documentation page, so users who want to dig deeper can know more about
> kudu internal.
>
Personally, since starting the project, I have had the philosophy that the
user-facing documentation should remain simple and not discuss internals
too much. I found in some other open source projects that there isn't a
clear difference between user documentation and developer documentation,
and users can easily get confused by all of the internal details. Or, users
may start to believe that Kudu is very complex and they need to understand
knapsack problem approximation algorithms in order to operate it. So,
normally we try to avoid exposing too much of the details.
That said, I think it is a good idea to add a small note in the
documentation somewhere that links to the design docs, maybe with some
sentence explaining that understanding internals is not necessary to
operate Kudu, but that expert users may find the internal design useful as
a reference? I would be curious to hear what other users think about how
best to make this trade-off.
-Todd
> At 2018-06-15 23:41:17, "Todd Lipcon" <t...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
> Also, keep in mind that when the MRS flushes, it flushes into a bunch of
> separate RowSets, not 1:1. It "rolls" to a new RowSet every N MB (N=32 by
> default). This is set by --budgeted_compaction_target_rowset_size
>
> However, increasing this size isn't likely to decrease the number of
> compactions, because each of these 32MB rowsets is non-overlapping. In
> other words, if your MRS contains rows A-Z, the output RowSets will include
> [A-C], [D-G], [H-P], [Q-Z]. Since these ranges do not overlap, they will
> never need to be compacted with each other. The net result, here, is that
> compaction becomes more fine-grained and only needs to operate on
> sub-ranges of the tablet where there is a lot of overlap.
>
> You can read more about this in docs/design-docs/compaction-policy.md, in
> particular the section "Limiting RowSet Sizes"
>
> Hope that helps
> -Todd
>
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 8:26 AM, William Berkeley <wdberke...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> The op seen in the logs is a rowset compaction, which takes existing
>> diskrowsets and rewrites them. It's not a flush, which writes data in
>> memory to disk, so I don't think the flush_threshold_mb is relevant. Rowset
>> compaction is done to reduce the amount of overlap of rowsets in primary
>> key space, i.e. reduce the number of rowsets that might need to be checked
>> to enforce the primary key constraint or find a row. Having lots of rowset
>> compaction indicates that rows are being written in a somewhat random order
>> w.r.t the primary key order. Kudu will perform much better as writes scale
>> when rows are inserted roughly in increasing order per tablet.
>>
>> Also, because you are using the log block manager (the default and only
>> one suitable for production deployments), there isn't a 1-1 relationship
>> between cfiles or diskrowsets and files on the filesystem. Many cfiles and
>> diskrowsets will be put together in a container file.
>>
>> Config parameters that might be relevant here:
>> --maintenance_manager_num_threads
>> --fs_data_dirs (how many)
>> --fs_wal_dir (is it shared on a device with the data dir?)
>>
>> The metrics from the compact row sets op indicates the time is spent in
>> fdatasync and in reading (likely reading the original rowsets). The overall
>> compaction time is kinda long but not crazy long. What's the performance
>> you are seeing and what is the performance you would like to see?
>>
>> -Will
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 7:52 AM, Quanlong Huang <huang_quanl...@126.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I'm running kudu 1.6.0-cdh5.14.2. When looking into the logs of tablet
>>> server, I find most of the compactions are compacting small files (~40MB
>>> for each). For example:
>>>
>>> I0615 07:22:42.637351 30614 tablet.cc:1661] T
>>> 6bdefb8c27764a0597dcf98ee1b450ba P 70f3e54fe0f3490cbf0371a6830a33a7:
>>> Compaction: stage 1 complete, picked 4 rowsets to compact
>>> I0615 07:22:42.637385 30614 compaction.cc:903] Selected 4 rowsets to
>>> compact:
>>> I0615 07:22:42.637393 30614 compaction.cc:906] RowSet(343)(current size
>>> on disk: ~40666600 bytes)
>>> I0615 07:22:42.637401 30614 compaction.cc:906] RowSet(1563)(current
>>> size on disk: ~34720852 bytes)
>>> I0615 07:22:42.637408 30614 compaction.cc:906] RowSet(1645)(current
>>> size on disk: ~29914833 bytes)
>>> I0615 07:22:42.637415 30614 compaction.cc:906] RowSet(1870)(current
>>> size on disk: ~29007249 bytes)
>>> I0615 07:22:42.637428 30614 tablet.cc:1447] T
>>> 6bdefb8c27764a0597dcf98ee1b450ba P 70f3e54fe0f3490cbf0371a6830a33a7:
>>> Compaction: entering phase 1 (flushing snapshot). Phase 1 snapshot:
>>> MvccSnapshot[committed={T|T < 6263071556616208384 or (T in
>>> {6263071556616208384})}]
>>> I0615 07:22:42.641582 30614 multi_column_writer.cc:103] Opened CFile
>>> writers for 124 column(s)
>>> I0615 07:22:43.875396 30614 multi_column_writer.cc:103] Opened CFile
>>> writers for 124 column(s)
>>> I0615 07:22:44.418421 30614 multi_column_writer.cc:103] Opened CFile
>>> writers for 124 column(s)
>>> I0615 07:22:45.114389 30614 multi_column_writer.cc:103] Opened CFile
>>> writers for 124 column(s)
>>> I0615 07:22:54.762563 30614 tablet.cc:1532] T
>>> 6bdefb8c27764a0597dcf98ee1b450ba P 70f3e54fe0f3490cbf0371a6830a33a7:
>>> Compaction: entering phase 2 (starting to duplicate updates in new rowsets)
>>> I0615 07:22:54.773572 30614 tablet.cc:1587] T
>>> 6bdefb8c27764a0597dcf98ee1b450ba P 70f3e54fe0f3490cbf0371a6830a33a7:
>>> Compaction Phase 2: carrying over any updates which arrived during Phase 1
>>> I0615 07:22:54.773599 30614 tablet.cc:1589] T
>>> 6bdefb8c27764a0597dcf98ee1b450ba P 70f3e54fe0f3490cbf0371a6830a33a7:
>>> Phase 2 snapshot: MvccSnapshot[committed={T|T < 6263071556616208384 or (T
>>> in {6263071556616208384})}]
>>> I0615 07:22:55.189757 30614 tablet.cc:1631] T
>>> 6bdefb8c27764a0597dcf98ee1b450ba P 70f3e54fe0f3490cbf0371a6830a33a7:
>>> Compaction successful on 82987 rows (123387929 bytes)
>>> I0615 07:22:55.191426 30614 maintenance_manager.cc:491] Time spent
>>> running CompactRowSetsOp(6bdefb8c27764a0597dcf98ee1b450ba): real 12.628s
>>> user
>>> 1.460s sys 0.410s
>>> I0615 07:22:55.191484 30614 maintenance_manager.cc:497] P
>>> 70f3e54fe0f3490cbf0371a6830a33a7:
>>> CompactRowSetsOp(6bdefb8c27764a0597dcf98ee1b450ba)
>>> metrics: {"cfile_cache_hit":812,"cfile_cache_hit_bytes":16840376,"cfi
>>> le_cache_miss":2730,"cfile_cache_miss_bytes":251298442,"cfile_init":496,"data
>>> dirs.queue_time_us":6646,"data dirs.run_cpu_time_us":2188,"data
>>> dirs.run_wall_time_us":101717,"fdatasync":315,"fdatasync_us"
>>> :9617174,"lbm_read_time_us":1288971,"lbm_reads_1-10_ms
>>> <https://maps.google.com/?q=1-10_ms+:+32&entry=gmail&source=g>":32,"
>>> lbm_reads_10-100_ms":41,"lbm_reads_lt_1ms":4641,"lbm_write_t
>>> ime_us":122520,"lbm_writes_lt_1ms":2799,"mutex_wait_us":25,"
>>> spinlock_wait_cycles":155264,"tcmalloc_contention_cycles":
>>> 768,"thread_start_us":677,"threads_started":14,"wal-appen
>>> d.queue_time_us":300}
>>>
>>> The flush_threshold_mb is set in the default value (1024). Wouldn't the
>>> flushed file size be ~1GB?
>>>
>>> I think increasing the initial RowSet size can reduce compactions and
>>> then reduce the impact of other ongoing operations. It may also improve the
>>> flush performance. Is that right? If so, how can I increase the RowSet size?
>>>
>>> I'd be grateful if someone can make me clear about these!
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Quanlong
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Todd Lipcon
> Software Engineer, Cloudera
>
>
--
Todd Lipcon
Software Engineer, Cloudera
