Henry Robinson commented on ZOOKEEPER-368:
Throughput is low - but we should be looking at the relative numbers, not the
absolute values (I get similar numbers running the current trunk in the same
configuration). One reason throughput might be arbitrarily low is because I'm
running these benchmarks against a single machine, so might be hitting disk
bottlenecks due to contention for the logs.
These numbers were for synchronous create operations, issued from a single
client. So read throughput would at best stay constant since the client can't
take advantage of the parallelism offered by multiple observers. I've also
benchmarked reads and mixed workloads (the most interesting, typically). Reads,
as expected, are fairly constant in throughput. Mixed workloads are better in
heterogeneous clusters, again as you would expect.
These are just indicative numbers to ensure that we're on the right track :)
Mahadev - I ran the experiment you suggested, I'll attach the chart results
> Key: ZOOKEEPER-368
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-368
> Project: Zookeeper
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Components: quorum
> Reporter: Flavio Paiva Junqueira
> Assignee: Henry Robinson
> Attachments: obs-refactor.patch, observer-refactor.patch, observers
> sync benchmark.png, observers.patch, ZOOKEEPER-368.patch,
> ZOOKEEPER-368.patch, ZOOKEEPER-368.patch, ZOOKEEPER-368.patch,
> ZOOKEEPER-368.patch, ZOOKEEPER-368.patch
> Currently, all servers of an ensemble participate actively in reaching
> agreement on the order of ZooKeeper transactions. That is, all followers
> receive proposals, acknowledge them, and receive commit messages from the
> leader. A leader issues commit messages once it receives acknowledgments from
> a quorum of followers. For cross-colo operation, it would be useful to have a
> third role: observer. Using Paxos terminology, observers are similar to
> learners. An observer does not participate actively in the agreement step of
> the atomic broadcast protocol. Instead, it only commits proposals that have
> been accepted by some quorum of followers.
> One simple solution to implement observers is to have the leader forwarding
> commit messages not only to followers but also to observers, and have
> observers applying transactions according to the order followers agreed upon.
> In the current implementation of the protocol, however, commit messages do
> not carry their corresponding transaction payload because all servers
> different from the leader are followers and followers receive such a payload
> first through a proposal message. Just forwarding commit messages as they
> currently are to an observer consequently is not sufficient. We have a couple
> of options:
> 1- Include the transaction payload along in commit messages to observers;
> 2- Send proposals to observers as well.
> Number 2 is simpler to implement because it doesn't require changing the
> protocol implementation, but it increases traffic slightly. The performance
> impact due to such an increase might be insignificant, though.
> For scalability purposes, we may consider having followers also forwarding
> commit messages to observers. With this option, observers can connect to
> followers, and receive messages from followers. This choice is important to
> avoid increasing the load on the leader with the number of observers.
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.