Mailing-List: contact notifications-help@accumulo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: jira@apache.org
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 23:45:22 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Josh Elser (JIRA)" <jira@apache.org>
To: notifications@accumulo.apache.org
Message-ID: <JIRA.12676872.1383232301286.94535.1384818322209@arcas>
In-Reply-To: <JIRA.12676872.1383232301286@arcas>
References: <JIRA.12676872.1383232301286@arcas>
Subject: [jira] [Resolved] (ACCUMULO-1833)
 MultiTableBatchWriterImpl.getBatchWriter() is not performant for multiple
 threads
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


     [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-1833?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]

Josh Elser resolved ACCUMULO-1833.
----------------------------------

    Resolution: Fixed

> MultiTableBatchWriterImpl.getBatchWriter() is not performant for multiple threads
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: ACCUMULO-1833
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-1833
>             Project: Accumulo
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>    Affects Versions: 1.5.0, 1.6.0
>            Reporter: Chris McCubbin
>            Assignee: Josh Elser
>             Fix For: 1.5.1, 1.6.0
>
>         Attachments: ACCUMULO-1833-test.patch, ZooKeeperThreadUtilization.png
>
>
> This issue comes from profiling our application. We have a MultiTableBatchWriter created by normal means. I am attempting to write to it with multiple threads by doing things like the following:
> {code}
> batchWriter.getBatchWriter(table).addMutations(mutations);
> {code}
> In my test with 4 threads writing to one table, this call is quite inefficient and results in a large performance degradation over a single BatchWriter.
> I believe the culprit is the fact that the call is synchronized. Also there is the possibility that the zookeeper call to Tables.getTableState on every call is negatively affecting performance:
> {code}
>   @Override
>   public synchronized BatchWriter getBatchWriter(String tableName) throws AccumuloException, AccumuloSecurityException, TableNotFoundException {
>     ArgumentChecker.notNull(tableName);
>     String tableId = Tables.getNameToIdMap(instance).get(tableName);
>     if (tableId == null)
>       throw new TableNotFoundException(tableId, tableName, null);
>     
>     if (Tables.getTableState(instance, tableId) == TableState.OFFLINE)
>       throw new TableOfflineException(instance, tableId);
>     
>     BatchWriter tbw = tableWriters.get(tableId);
>     if (tbw == null) {
>       tbw = new TableBatchWriter(tableId);
>       tableWriters.put(tableId, tbw);
>     }
>     return tbw;
>   }
> {code}
> I recommend moving the synchronized block to happen only if the batchwriter is not present, and also only checking if the table is online at that time:
> {code}
>   @Override
>   public BatchWriter getBatchWriter(String tableName) throws AccumuloException, AccumuloSecurityException, TableNotFoundException {
>     ArgumentChecker.notNull(tableName);
>     String tableId = Tables.getNameToIdMap(instance).get(tableName);
>     if (tableId == null)
>       throw new TableNotFoundException(tableId, tableName, null);
>     BatchWriter tbw = tableWriters.get(tableId);
>     if (tbw == null) {
>       if (Tables.getTableState(instance, tableId) == TableState.OFFLINE)
>           throw new TableOfflineException(instance, tableId);
>       tbw = new TableBatchWriter(tableId);
>       synchronized(tableWriters){
>           //only create a new table writer if we haven't been beaten to it.
>           if (tableWriters.get(tableId) == null)      
>               tableWriters.put(tableId, tbw);
>       }
>     }
>     return tbw;
>   }
> {code}


--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.1#6144)