cassandra-commits mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jonathan Ellis (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Updated] (CASSANDRA-2901) Allow taking advantage of multiple cores while compacting a single CF
Date Thu, 04 Aug 2011 04:41:27 GMT

     [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-2901?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]

Jonathan Ellis updated CASSANDRA-2901:
--------------------------------------

    Attachment:     (was: 0001-fix-tracker-getting-out-of-sync-with-underlying-data-s.txt)

> Allow taking advantage of multiple cores while compacting a single CF
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: CASSANDRA-2901
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-2901
>             Project: Cassandra
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: Core
>            Reporter: Jonathan Ellis
>            Assignee: Jonathan Ellis
>            Priority: Minor
>             Fix For: 0.8.4
>
>         Attachments: 0001-fix-tracker-getting-out-of-sync-with-underlying-data-s.txt,
0002-parallel-compaction.txt
>
>
> Moved from CASSANDRA-1876:
> There are five stages: read, deserialize, merge, serialize, and write. We probably want
to continue doing read+deserialize and serialize+write together, or you waste a lot copying
to/from buffers.
> So, what I would suggest is: one thread per input sstable doing read + deserialize (a
row at a time). A thread pool (one per core?) merging corresponding rows from each input sstable.
One thread doing serialize + writing the output (this has to wait for the merge threads to
complete in-order, obviously). This should take us from being CPU bound on SSDs (since only
one core is compacting) to being I/O bound.
> This will require roughly 2x the memory, to allow the reader threads to work ahead of
the merge stage. (I.e. for each input sstable you will have up to one row in a queue waiting
to be merged, and the reader thread working on the next.) Seems quite reasonable on that front.
 You'll also want a small queue size for the serialize-merged-rows executor.
> Multithreaded compaction should be either on or off. It doesn't make sense to try to
do things halfway (by doing the reads with a
> threadpool whose size you can grow/shrink, for instance): we still have compaction threads
tuned to low priority, by default, so the impact on the rest of the system won't be very different.
Nor do we expect to have so many input sstables that we lose a lot in context switching between
reader threads.
> IMO it's acceptable to punt completely on rows that are larger than memory, and fall
back to the old non-parallel code there. I don't see any sane way to parallelize large-row
compactions.

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

        

Mime
View raw message