cassandra-commits mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Benjamin Coverston (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (CASSANDRA-1608) Redesigned Compaction
Date Fri, 17 Jun 2011 06:46:48 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-1608?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13050908#comment-13050908
] 

Benjamin Coverston commented on CASSANDRA-1608:
-----------------------------------------------

The LDBCompaction task was changed to limit the size of the SSTables that are output by the
compaction itself. Once the size of rows compacted exceeds the size of the default size in
MB then it creates a new SSTable:

>>

if(position > cfs.metadata.getMemtableThroughputInMb() * 1024 * 1024
                        || nni.hasNext() == false)
                {
<<

It feels like a bit of a hack because an optimal flush size may not always be an optimal storage
size, but my goal was to try to keep the SSTable size in a reasonably small range to make
compactions into into level 1 fast.

I'll make some more modifications to the manifest s.t. there is a single path for getting
new SSTables (flushed and streamed) into the manifest. I found a bug on the plane today where
they were getting added to the manifest, but they weren't being added to the queue that I
was adding flushed SSTables to. I'll get that into my next revision.

>>
In promote, do we need to check for all the removed ones being on the same level? I can't
think of a scenario where we're not merging from multiple levels. If so I'd change that to
an assert. (In fact there should be exactly two levels involved, right?)
<<

I considered this. There are some boundary cases where every SSTable that gets compacted will
be in the same level. Most of them have to do with L+1 being empty. Also sending the SSTables
through the same compaction path will evict expired tombstones before they end up in the next
level where compactions become increasingly unlikely.

>>
Did some surgery on getCompactionCandidates. Generally renamed things to be more succinct.
Feels like we getCompactionCandidates should do lower levels before doing higher levels?
<<

Let's just say my naming conventions have been shaped by different influences :) I wouldn't
object to any of the new names you chose however.

RE: the order, it does feel like we should do lower levels before higher levels, however one
thing that we have to do is make sure that level-1 stays at 10 SSTables. The algorithm dictates
that all of the level-0 candidates get compacted with all of the candidates at level-1. This
means that you need to promote out of level-1 so that it is ~10 SSTables before you schedule
a compaction for level-0 promotion. Right now tuning this so that it is performant is the
biggest hurdle, I have made some improvements by watching the CompactionExecutor, but I have
a feeling that making this work is going to require some subtle manipulation of the way that
the CompactionExecutor handles tasks.



> Redesigned Compaction
> ---------------------
>
>                 Key: CASSANDRA-1608
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-1608
>             Project: Cassandra
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: Core
>            Reporter: Chris Goffinet
>         Attachments: 0001-leveldb-style-compaction.patch, 1608-v2.txt
>
>
> After seeing the I/O issues in CASSANDRA-1470, I've been doing some more thinking on
this subject that I wanted to lay out.
> I propose we redo the concept of how compaction works in Cassandra. At the moment, compaction
is kicked off based on a write access pattern, not read access pattern. In most cases, you
want the opposite. You want to be able to track how well each SSTable is performing in the
system. If we were to keep statistics in-memory of each SSTable, prioritize them based on
most accessed, and bloom filter hit/miss ratios, we could intelligently group sstables that
are being read most often and schedule them for compaction. We could also schedule lower priority
maintenance on SSTable's not often accessed.
> I also propose we limit the size of each SSTable to a fix sized, that gives us the ability
to  better utilize our bloom filters in a predictable manner. At the moment after a certain
size, the bloom filters become less reliable. This would also allow us to group data most
accessed. Currently the size of an SSTable can grow to a point where large portions of the
data might not actually be accessed as often.

--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

        

Mime
View raw message