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 <[email protected]>
wrote:

> What about SSD disks, don't they make a difference?
>
> On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 12:36 AM Marco Neumann <[email protected]>
> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]>
> 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