Mailing-List: contact issues-help@activemq.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@activemq.apache.org
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 15:15:13 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Francesco Nigro (JIRA)" <jira@apache.org>
To: issues@activemq.apache.org
Message-ID: <JIRA.12963110.1461770054000.47700.1461770113223@Atlassian.JIRA>
In-Reply-To: <JIRA.12963110.1461770054000@Atlassian.JIRA>
References: <JIRA.12963110.1461770054000@Atlassian.JIRA>
 <JIRA.12963110.1461770054197@arcas>
Subject: [jira] [Created] (ARTEMIS-508) Sequential File Improvement +
 Performance Tests
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Francesco Nigro created ARTEMIS-508:
---------------------------------------

             Summary: Sequential File Improvement + Performance Tests
                 Key: ARTEMIS-508
                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-508
             Project: ActiveMQ Artemis
          Issue Type: Improvement
            Reporter: Francesco Nigro
            Priority: Critical


https://github.com/franz1981/activemq-artemis/commit/faaec74a7c070f5689e4da71996818488d8d0d18

I've implemented in the package org.apache.activemq.artemis.core.io.mapped a new memory mapped SequentialFile implementation to support fast write/read operations for OSs that cannot use libaio or need RAM access performances on standard Files.

The implementation is not thread-safe (it is needed?) and needs more buffer checks (or a complex implementation).  I'm using the Netty's PlatformDependent class to perform bulk copy without safepoint's poll issues.
The implementation is simple but it's good as a proof of concept to compare it against the others: i' ve added a coordinated-omission performance test to measure the latency of a directWrite + OS jitter.
The write tests show performances typical of memory mapped file: quoting from Peter Lawrey "for burst of up to 10% of the main memory, it can sustain rates of 1 - 3 GB/second written. e.g. A laptop with 8 GB of memory might handle bursts of 800 MB at a rate of 1 GB per second. A server with 64 GB of memory might handle a burst of 6.5 GB at a rate of 3 GB per second".

I want to improve the quality of the implementation by:
1- enforcing the original SequenceFile contract 
2- replacing synchronized reads/writes with lock-free versions
3- replacing the EventExecutor with a Lock-Free (even wait-free) Array Queue + EventLoop's poller
4- addressing all the False-Sharing issues around all the AtomicLong instances used
5- reducing the garbage produced for the fast paths to 0
[6- expose try methods to allow direct flow control]
[7- replacing the Semaphore based rate limiter with a lock free one]

That's are all proposals, what do you think about it? 

Regards


--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)