hadoop-common-commits mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From a..@apache.org
Subject hadoop git commit: HDFS-11419. Performance analysis of new DFSNetworkTopology#chooseRandom. Contributed by Chen Liang.
Date Tue, 23 May 2017 03:26:14 GMT
Repository: hadoop
Updated Branches:
  refs/heads/trunk ca6bcc3c7 -> d0f346af2


HDFS-11419. Performance analysis of new DFSNetworkTopology#chooseRandom. Contributed by Chen
Liang.


Project: http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/hadoop/repo
Commit: http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/hadoop/commit/d0f346af
Tree: http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/hadoop/tree/d0f346af
Diff: http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/hadoop/diff/d0f346af

Branch: refs/heads/trunk
Commit: d0f346af26293f0ac8d118f98628f5528c1d6811
Parents: ca6bcc3
Author: Arpit Agarwal <arp@apache.org>
Authored: Mon May 22 20:25:34 2017 -0700
Committer: Arpit Agarwal <arp@apache.org>
Committed: Mon May 22 20:25:34 2017 -0700

----------------------------------------------------------------------
 .../net/TestDFSNetworkTopologyPerformance.java  | 524 +++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 524 insertions(+)
----------------------------------------------------------------------


http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/hadoop/blob/d0f346af/hadoop-hdfs-project/hadoop-hdfs/src/test/java/org/apache/hadoop/hdfs/net/TestDFSNetworkTopologyPerformance.java
----------------------------------------------------------------------
diff --git a/hadoop-hdfs-project/hadoop-hdfs/src/test/java/org/apache/hadoop/hdfs/net/TestDFSNetworkTopologyPerformance.java
b/hadoop-hdfs-project/hadoop-hdfs/src/test/java/org/apache/hadoop/hdfs/net/TestDFSNetworkTopologyPerformance.java
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..77a059a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/hadoop-hdfs-project/hadoop-hdfs/src/test/java/org/apache/hadoop/hdfs/net/TestDFSNetworkTopologyPerformance.java
@@ -0,0 +1,524 @@
+/**
+ * Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one
+ * or more contributor license agreements.  See the NOTICE file
+ * distributed with this work for additional information
+ * regarding copyright ownership.  The ASF licenses this file
+ * to you under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the
+ * "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance
+ * with the License.  You may obtain a copy of the License at
+ *
+ *     http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
+ *
+ * Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
+ * distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
+ * WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
+ * See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
+ * limitations under the License.
+ */
+package org.apache.hadoop.hdfs.net;
+
+import org.apache.hadoop.conf.Configuration;
+import org.apache.hadoop.fs.StorageType;
+import org.apache.hadoop.hdfs.DFSTestUtil;
+import org.apache.hadoop.hdfs.server.blockmanagement.DatanodeDescriptor;
+import org.apache.hadoop.hdfs.server.blockmanagement.DatanodeStorageInfo;
+import org.apache.hadoop.net.NetworkTopology;
+import org.apache.hadoop.net.Node;
+import org.junit.Before;
+import org.junit.BeforeClass;
+import org.junit.Ignore;
+import org.junit.Test;
+import org.slf4j.Logger;
+import org.slf4j.LoggerFactory;
+
+import java.text.NumberFormat;
+import java.util.EnumSet;
+import java.util.HashSet;
+import java.util.Random;
+import java.util.Set;
+
+import static org.junit.Assert.assertNotNull;
+import static org.junit.Assert.assertTrue;
+
+/**
+ * Performance test of the new DFSNetworkTopology chooseRandom.
+ *
+ * NOTE that the tests are not for correctness but for performance comparison,
+ * so the tests are printing and writing down values rather than doing assertion
+ * checks or timeout checks. Therefore, it is pointless to run these
+ * tests without something reading the value. So disabled the tests to for now,
+ * anyone interested in looking at the numbers can enable them.
+ */
+@Ignore
+public class TestDFSNetworkTopologyPerformance {
+  public static final Logger LOG =
+      LoggerFactory.getLogger(TestDFSNetworkTopologyPerformance.class);
+  private static NetworkTopology cluster;
+  private static DFSNetworkTopology dfscluster;
+  private DatanodeDescriptor[] dataNodes;
+
+  private final static int NODE_NUM = 2000;
+  private final static int OP_NUM = 20000;
+
+  private final static int L1_NUM = 5;
+  private final static int L2_NUM = 10;
+  private final static int L3_NUM = 10;
+
+  private final static float NS_TO_MS = 1000000;
+
+  private final static Random RANDOM = new Random();
+
+  private Node node;
+  private long totalStart;
+  private long totalEnd;
+  private int totalTrials;
+  private float totalMs;
+  private Set<Node> excluded;
+  private static String[] racks;
+  private static String[] hosts;
+  private static StorageType[] types;
+
+  private static long[] records;
+  private long localStart;
+  private long localEnd;
+
+
+  @BeforeClass
+  public static void init() throws Exception {
+    racks = new String[NODE_NUM];
+    hosts = new String[NODE_NUM];
+    types = new StorageType[NODE_NUM];
+    records = new long[OP_NUM];
+    for (int i = 0; i < NODE_NUM; i++) {
+      racks[i] = getRandLocation();
+      hosts[i] = "host" + i;
+    }
+  }
+
+  @Before
+  public void setup() throws Exception {
+    cluster = NetworkTopology.getInstance(new Configuration());
+    dfscluster = DFSNetworkTopology.getInstance(new Configuration());
+    excluded = new HashSet<>();
+  }
+
+  /**
+   * In this test, all the node types are uniformly distributed. i.e. a node
+   * has equal of being DISK, RAM_DISK, SSD and ARCHIVE. This test did two tests
+   * first test runs the old chooseRandom approach, the second test runs the
+   * new chooseRandom approach.
+   * @throws Exception
+   */
+  @Test
+  public void testUniformStorageType() throws Exception {
+    EnumSet<StorageType> missingTypes = EnumSet.allOf(StorageType.class);
+
+    for (int i = 0; i < NODE_NUM; i++) {
+      types[i] = getRandType();
+      missingTypes.remove(types);
+    }
+
+    if (missingTypes.size() != 0) {
+      // it is statistically very, very rare that missingTypes is not length 0
+      // at this point. But if it happened, we do the trick by inserting 1 per
+      // remaining types randomly into the array, such that it is guaranteed all
+      // types exist
+      Set<Integer> usedIdx = new HashSet<>();
+      int idx;
+      for (StorageType type : missingTypes) {
+        do {
+          idx = RANDOM.nextInt(NODE_NUM);
+        } while (usedIdx.contains(idx));
+        usedIdx.add(idx);
+        types[idx] = type;
+      }
+    }
+
+    addNodeByTypes(types);
+
+    // wait a bit for things to become stable
+    Thread.sleep(1000);
+    printMemUsage("before test1");
+
+    totalStart = System.nanoTime();
+    totalTrials = 0;
+    for (int i = 0; i < OP_NUM; i++) {
+      StorageType type = StorageType.values()[i%StorageType.values().length];
+      // mimic the behaviour of current code:
+      // 1. chooseRandom on NetworkTopology
+      // 2. if it satisfies, we are good, break
+      // 3. if not, add to excluded, try again
+      // The reason of doing simulated behaviour is that in NetworkTopology,
+      // the code that does this is a wrapper method that is fairly complex
+      // and does something more than just chooseRandom. So it would be unfair
+      // to the current code if we compare the wrapper with the new chooseRandom
+      // because we should only compare the two chooseRandom methods.
+      // However the way current chooseRandom works involves checking storage
+      // type of return nodes. We still need to simulate this behaviour.
+      localStart = System.nanoTime();
+      do {
+        totalTrials += 1;
+        node = cluster.chooseRandom("", excluded);
+        assertNotNull(node);
+        if (isType(node, type)) {
+          break;
+        }
+        excluded.add(node);
+      } while (true);
+      excluded.clear();
+      localEnd = System.nanoTime();
+      records[i] = localEnd - localStart;
+    }
+    totalEnd = System.nanoTime();
+    totalMs = (totalEnd - totalStart)/NS_TO_MS;
+    // 4 trials on average.
+    LOG.info("total time: {} avg time: {} avg trials: {}",
+        totalMs, totalMs / OP_NUM, (float)totalTrials / OP_NUM);
+
+    // wait a bit for things to become stable
+    Thread.sleep(1000);
+    printMemUsage("after test1 before test2");
+
+    totalStart = System.nanoTime();
+    for (int i = 0; i < OP_NUM; i++) {
+      StorageType type = StorageType.values()[i%StorageType.values().length];
+      localStart = System.nanoTime();
+      node = dfscluster.chooseRandomWithStorageType("", excluded, type);
+      assertNotNull(node);
+      // with dfs cluster, the returned is always already the required type;
+      // add assertion mainly to make a more fair comparison
+      assertTrue(isType(node, type));
+      localEnd = System.nanoTime();
+      records[i] = localEnd - localStart;
+    }
+    totalEnd = System.nanoTime();
+    totalMs = (totalEnd - totalStart)/NS_TO_MS;
+    LOG.info("total time: {} avg time: {}", totalMs, totalMs / OP_NUM);
+
+    printMemUsage("after test2");
+  }
+
+  /**
+   * There are two storage types DISK and ARCHIVE. DISK compose the majority and
+   * ARCHIVE only compose 1/20 nodes, uniformly distributed. This test also runs
+   * two tests, one with old approach and one with the new approach. Try to
+   * search for ARCHIVE type devices. This test show how new approach can
+   * outperform the old one.
+   * @throws Exception
+   */
+  @Test
+  public void testUnbalancedStorageType() throws Exception {
+    for (int i = 0; i < NODE_NUM; i++) {
+      types[i] = StorageType.DISK;
+    }
+    for (int i = 0; i < NODE_NUM/20; i++) {
+      types[RANDOM.nextInt(NODE_NUM)] = StorageType.ARCHIVE;
+    }
+    addNodeByTypes(types);
+
+    // wait a bit for things to become stable
+    Thread.sleep(1000);
+    printMemUsage("before test1");
+
+    totalStart = System.nanoTime();
+    totalTrials = 0;
+    for (int i = 0; i < OP_NUM; i++) {
+      // mimic the behaviour of current code:
+      // 1. chooseRandom on NetworkTopology
+      // 2. if it satisfies, we are good, break
+      // 3. if not, add to excluded, try again
+      localStart = System.nanoTime();
+      do {
+        totalTrials += 1;
+        node = cluster.chooseRandom("", excluded);
+        assertNotNull(node);
+        if (isType(node, StorageType.ARCHIVE)) {
+          break;
+        }
+        excluded.add(node);
+      } while (true);
+      excluded.clear();
+      localEnd = System.nanoTime();
+      records[i] = localEnd - localStart;
+    }
+    totalEnd = System.nanoTime();
+    totalMs = (totalEnd - totalStart)/NS_TO_MS;
+    // on average it takes 20 trials
+    LOG.info("total time: {} avg time: {} avg trials: {}",
+        totalMs, totalMs / OP_NUM, (float)totalTrials / OP_NUM);
+    // wait a bit for things to become stable
+    Thread.sleep(1000);
+    printMemUsage("after test1 before test2");
+
+    totalStart = System.nanoTime();
+    for (int i = 0; i < OP_NUM; i++) {
+      localStart = System.nanoTime();
+      node = dfscluster.chooseRandomWithStorageType("", excluded,
+          StorageType.ARCHIVE);
+      assertNotNull(node);
+      // with dfs cluster, the returned is always already the required type;
+      // add assertion mainly to make a more fair comparison
+      assertTrue(isType(node, StorageType.ARCHIVE));
+      localEnd = System.nanoTime();
+      records[i] = localEnd - localStart;
+    }
+    totalEnd = System.nanoTime();
+    totalMs = (totalEnd - totalStart)/NS_TO_MS;
+    LOG.info("total time: {} avg time: {}", totalMs, totalMs/OP_NUM);
+
+    printMemUsage("after test2");
+  }
+
+  /**
+   * There is only one storage type (DISK) in the cluster. And tries to select
+   * a DISK devices every time also. One approach will always succeed in one
+   * call. This test shows how bad the new approach is compared to the optimal
+   * situation.
+   * @throws Exception
+   */
+  @Test
+  public void testSameStorageType() throws Exception {
+    for (int i = 0; i < NODE_NUM; i++) {
+      types[i] = StorageType.DISK;
+    }
+    addNodeByTypes(types);
+
+    // wait a bit for things to become stable
+    Thread.sleep(1000);
+    printMemUsage("before test1");
+
+    totalStart = System.nanoTime();
+    totalTrials = 0;
+    for (int i = 0; i < OP_NUM; i++) {
+      // mimic the behaviour of current code:
+      // 1. chooseRandom on NetworkTopology
+      // 2. if it satisfies, we are good, break
+      // 3. if not, add to excluded, try again
+      do {
+        totalTrials += 1;
+        node = cluster.chooseRandom("", excluded);
+        assertNotNull(node);
+        if (isType(node, StorageType.DISK)) {
+          break;
+        }
+        excluded.add(node);
+      } while (true);
+      excluded.clear();
+    }
+    totalEnd = System.nanoTime();
+    totalMs = (totalEnd - totalStart)/NS_TO_MS;
+    // on average it takes 20 trials
+    LOG.info("total time: {} avg time: {} avg trials: {}",
+        totalMs, totalMs / OP_NUM, (float)totalTrials / OP_NUM);
+    // wait a bit for things to become stable
+    Thread.sleep(1000);
+    printMemUsage("after test1 before test2");
+
+    totalStart = System.nanoTime();
+    for (int i = 0; i < OP_NUM; i++) {
+      node = dfscluster.chooseRandomWithStorageType("", excluded,
+          StorageType.DISK);
+      assertNotNull(node);
+      // with dfs cluster, the returned is always already the required type;
+      // add assertion mainly to make a more fair comparison
+      assertTrue(isType(node, StorageType.DISK));
+    }
+    totalEnd = System.nanoTime();
+    totalMs = (totalEnd - totalStart) / NS_TO_MS;
+    LOG.info("total time: {} avg time: {}", totalMs, totalMs / OP_NUM);
+
+    printMemUsage("after test2");
+  }
+
+  private boolean coinFlip(double chance) {
+    return RANDOM.nextInt(NODE_NUM) <= NODE_NUM*chance;
+  }
+
+  /**
+   * This is a helper test, can be changed to different distribution each run.
+   * Changing the value percentage = X where X is between 0.0 to 1.0 will result
+   * in different outcomes. This is to help understanding what is the boundary
+   * that makes the new approach better than the old one. The lower X is, the
+   * less likely the old approach will succeed in one call, in which case the
+   * new approach is more likely to be better.
+   * @throws Exception
+   */
+  @Test
+  public void testPercentageStorageType() throws Exception {
+    double percentage = 0.9;
+    for (int i = 0; i < NODE_NUM; i++) {
+      if (coinFlip(percentage)) {
+        types[i] = StorageType.ARCHIVE;
+      } else {
+        types[i] = StorageType.DISK;
+      }
+    }
+    addNodeByTypes(types);
+
+    // wait a bit for things to become stable
+    Thread.sleep(1000);
+    printMemUsage("before test1");
+
+    totalStart = System.nanoTime();
+    totalTrials = 0;
+    for (int i = 0; i < OP_NUM; i++) {
+      // mimic the behaviour of current code:
+      // 1. chooseRandom on NetworkTopology
+      // 2. if it satisfies, we are good, break
+      // 3. if not, add to excluded, try again
+      localStart = System.nanoTime();
+      do {
+        totalTrials += 1;
+        node = cluster.chooseRandom("", excluded);
+        assertNotNull(node);
+        if (isType(node, StorageType.ARCHIVE)) {
+          break;
+        }
+        excluded.add(node);
+      } while (true);
+      excluded.clear();
+      localEnd = System.nanoTime();
+      records[i] = localEnd - localStart;
+    }
+    totalEnd = System.nanoTime();
+    totalMs = (totalEnd - totalStart) / NS_TO_MS;
+    // on average it takes 20 trials
+    LOG.info("total time: {} avg time: {} avg trials: {}",
+        totalMs, totalMs / OP_NUM, (float)totalTrials / OP_NUM);
+    // wait a bit for things to become stable
+    Thread.sleep(1000);
+    printMemUsage("after test1 before test2");
+
+    totalStart = System.nanoTime();
+    for (int i = 0; i < OP_NUM; i++) {
+      localStart = System.nanoTime();
+      node = dfscluster.chooseRandomWithStorageType("", excluded,
+          StorageType.ARCHIVE);
+      assertNotNull(node);
+      // with dfs cluster, the returned is always already the required type;
+      // add assertion mainly to make a more fair comparison
+      assertTrue(isType(node, StorageType.ARCHIVE));
+      localEnd = System.nanoTime();
+      records[i] = localEnd - localStart;
+    }
+    totalEnd = System.nanoTime();
+    totalMs = (totalEnd - totalStart) / NS_TO_MS;
+    LOG.info("total time: {} avg time: {}", totalMs, totalMs / OP_NUM);
+
+    printMemUsage("after test2");
+  }
+
+  /**
+   * Similar to the previous test, change the percentage value to understand
+   * the performance of the mixed approach. More specifically, this test takes
+   * the approach that, it uses old approach for the first try, only if the
+   * old approach failed in the first try, it makes another call with the
+   * new approach. There is no comparison within this test.
+   * @throws Exception
+   */
+  @Test
+  public void testPercentageStorageTypeWithMixedTopology() throws Exception {
+    double percentage = 0.9;
+    for (int i = 0; i < NODE_NUM; i++) {
+      if (coinFlip(percentage)) {
+        types[i] = StorageType.ARCHIVE;
+      } else {
+        types[i] = StorageType.DISK;
+      }
+    }
+    addNodeByTypes(types);
+
+    // wait a bit for things to become stable
+    Thread.sleep(1000);
+    printMemUsage("before test1");
+
+    totalStart = System.nanoTime();
+    totalTrials = 0;
+    for (int i = 0; i < OP_NUM; i++) {
+      // mimic the behavior of current code:
+      // 1. chooseRandom on NetworkTopology
+      // 2. if it satisfies, we are good, do the next operation
+      // 3. if not, chooseRandom on DFSNetworkTopology
+      localStart = System.nanoTime();
+
+      totalTrials += 1;
+      node = cluster.chooseRandom("", excluded);
+      assertNotNull(node);
+      if (!isType(node, StorageType.ARCHIVE)) {
+        totalTrials += 1;
+        excluded.add(node);
+        node = dfscluster.chooseRandomWithStorageType("", excluded,
+            StorageType.ARCHIVE);
+      }
+      assertTrue(isType(node, StorageType.ARCHIVE));
+
+      excluded.clear();
+      localEnd = System.nanoTime();
+      records[i] = localEnd - localStart;
+    }
+    totalEnd = System.nanoTime();
+    totalMs = (totalEnd - totalStart)/NS_TO_MS;
+    LOG.info("total time: {} avg time: {} avg trials: {}",
+        totalMs, totalMs / OP_NUM, (float)totalTrials / OP_NUM);
+    // wait a bit for things to become stable
+    Thread.sleep(1000);
+    printMemUsage("test StorageType with mixed topology.");
+  }
+
+  /**
+   * Print out the memory usage statistics. Note that this is an estimation by
+   * Java Runtime. Should not take the actual value too serious but more focus
+   * on the relative changes.
+   * @param message a prefix message
+   * @throws Exception throws exception
+   */
+  private void printMemUsage(String message) throws Exception {
+    Runtime runtime = Runtime.getRuntime();
+    NumberFormat format = NumberFormat.getInstance();
+    StringBuilder sb = new StringBuilder();
+    sb.append(message);
+
+    long maxMemory = runtime.maxMemory();
+    long allocatedMemory = runtime.totalMemory();
+    long freeMemory = runtime.freeMemory();
+
+    sb.append("\nfree memory: " + format.format(freeMemory / 1024));
+    sb.append("\nallocated memory: " + format.format(allocatedMemory / 1024));
+    sb.append("\nmax memory: " + format.format(maxMemory / 1024));
+    sb.append("\ntotal free memory: " + format.format(
+        (freeMemory + (maxMemory - allocatedMemory)) / 1024));
+    LOG.info(sb.toString());
+  }
+
+  private void addNodeByTypes(StorageType[] allTypes) {
+    DatanodeStorageInfo[] storages =
+        DFSTestUtil.createDatanodeStorageInfos(
+            NODE_NUM, racks, hosts, allTypes);
+    dataNodes = DFSTestUtil.toDatanodeDescriptor(storages);
+    for (int i = 0; i < NODE_NUM; i++) {
+      cluster.add(dataNodes[i]);
+      dfscluster.add(dataNodes[i]);
+    }
+  }
+
+  private static String getRandLocation() {
+    int l1 = RANDOM.nextInt(L1_NUM) + 1;
+    int l2 = RANDOM.nextInt(L2_NUM) + 1;
+    int l3 = RANDOM.nextInt(L3_NUM) + 1;
+    return String.format("/%d/%d/%d", l1, l2, l3);
+  }
+
+  private StorageType getRandType() {
+    int len = StorageType.values().length;
+    return StorageType.values()[RANDOM.nextInt(len)];
+  }
+
+  private boolean isType(Node n, StorageType type) {
+    // no need to check n == null, because it's done by the caller
+    if (!(n instanceof DatanodeDescriptor)) {
+      return false;
+    }
+    DatanodeDescriptor dnDescriptor = (DatanodeDescriptor)n;
+    return dnDescriptor.hasStorageType(type);
+  }
+}


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: common-commits-unsubscribe@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: common-commits-help@hadoop.apache.org


Mime
View raw message