Yeah. You would also want a mechanism to prevent queuing the same CF
multiple times, and probably want the completion of one compaction to
trigger a check to see if it should queue another.
A possibly different architecture than the current style of queues would be
to have each Store (all open in memory) keep a compactionPriority score up
to date after events like flushes, compactions, schema changes, etc. Then
you create a "CompactionPriorityComparator implements Comparator<Store>"
and stick all the Stores into a PriorityQueue. The async compaction
threads would keep pulling off the head of that queue as long as the head
has compactionPriority > X.
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 3:44 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Interesting. So a compaction request would hold no information beyond the
> CF, really,
> but is just a promise to do a compaction as soon as possible.
> I agree with Ted, we should explore this in a jira.
> -- Lars
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Matt Corgan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2012 3:18 PM
> Subject: Re: Follow-up to my HBASE-4365 testing
> I've been meaning to look into something regarding compactions for a while
> now that may be relevant here. It could be that this is already how it
> works, but just to be sure I'll spell out my suspicions...
> I did a lot of large uploads when we moved to .92. Our biggest dataset is
> time series data (partitioned 16 ways with a row prefix). The actual
> inserting and flushing went extremely quickly, and the parallel compactions
> were churning away. However, when the compactions inevitably started
> falling behind I noticed a potential problem. The compaction queue would
> get up to, say, 40, which represented, say, an hour's worth of requests.
> The problem was that by the time a compaction request started executing,
> the CompactionSelection that it held was terribly out of date. It was
> compacting a small selection (3-5) of the 50 files that were now there.
> Then the next request would compact another (3-5), etc, etc, until the
> queue was empty. It would have been much better if a CompactionRequest
> decided what files to compact when it got to the head of the queue. Then
> it could see that there are now 50 files needing compacting and to possibly
> compact the 30 smallest ones, not just 5. When the insertions were done
> after many hours, I would have preferred it to do one giant major
> compaction, but it sat there and worked through it's compaction queue
> compacting all sorts of different combinations of files.
> Said differently, it looks like .92 picks the files to compact at
> compaction request time rather than compaction execution time which is
> problematic when these times grow far apart. Is that the case? Maybe
> there are some other effects that are mitigating it...
> On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 10:05 AM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Hey guys,
> > So in HBASE-4365 I ran multiple uploads and the latest one I reported
> > was a 5TB import on 14 RS and it took 18h with Stack's patch. Now one
> > thing we can see is that apart from some splitting, there's a lot of
> > compacting going on. Stack was wondering exactly how much that IO
> > costs us, so we devised a test where we could upload 5TB with 0
> > compactions. Here are the results:
> > The table was pre-split with 14 regions, 1 per region server.
> > hbase.hstore.compactionThreshold=100
> > hbase.hstore.blockingStoreFiles=110
> > hbase.regionserver.maxlogs=64 (the block size is 128MB)
> > hfile.block.cache.size=0.05
> > hbase.regionserver.global.memstore.lowerLimit=0.40
> > hbase.regionserver.global.memstore.upperLimit=0.74
> > export HBASE_REGIONSERVER_OPTS="$HBASE_JMX_BASE -Xmx14G
> > -XX:CMSInitiatingOccupancyFraction=75 -XX:NewSize=256m
> > -XX:MaxNewSize=256m"
> > The table had:
> > MAX_FILESIZE => '549755813888', MEMSTORE_FLUSHSIZE => '549755813888'