hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSSION] Merge of the hbase-11339 mob branch into master.
Date Sat, 23 May 2015 16:47:20 GMT
Maybe we can remove the dependency on a MR runtime for MOB maintenance by
reimplementing those parallel tasks using Procedure V2? We wouldn't be
looking at MOB for 1.2 but maybe 1.3? I'm also not sure the community as a
whole has the necessary bandwidth for perf and stability testing of MOB in
the 1.2 timeframe, but 1.3 would be more likely.


On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 9:40 AM, Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org> wrote:

> Regarding performance testing: Whatever has been done on the MOB branch
> will be interesting data points, and, potentially encouraging, but porting
> to branch-1 will produce a new code base. Earlier results on other code
> will not be applicable. We have to start over. Like I said elsewhere, I'm
> happy to help with (re)characterizing the perf impact and improvements
> produced by the changes.
>
> What coverage do we have for verifying the integrity of MOB references?
> Will the sweep tool detect, alert on, and optionally repair dangling
> references? (I could answer this for myself by looking at MOB branch, but
> hopefully someone here has an answer at the ready.) I assume we calculate
> and store checksums for MOB data itself so we know if values are corrupt.
> Does the sweep tool detect MOB value corruption? Can it be repaired? Do we
> have a good ops story for why HBCK is no longer sufficient on its own,
> there's a separate tool with a whole new set of options - and a requirement
> for a MR runtime! - for checking MOB data? That last one is a rhetorical
> question (smile), the ops story is... unsatisfying. It's like we've taken a
> self sufficient HBase and bolted in parts of Hive, so now we need MR.
>
>
> On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 1:45 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <jon@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
>> In another thread andrew purtell brought up some concerns about the mob
>> feature:
>>
>> On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 12:40 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org>
>>  wrote:
>>
>> > Another point of clarification, sorry, I hit the send button too early
>> it
>> > seems: I don't believe MOB is fully integrated yet, for example the
>> > feature
>> > is an extension to store that lacks support for encryption (this would
>> > technically be a feature regression); and HBCK. I have not been
>> following
>> > MOB too closely so could be mistaken. These issues do not preclude a
>> merge
>> > of MOB into trunk, but do preclude a merge back of MOB from trunk to
>> > branch-1. I would veto the latter until such shortcomings in the
>> > implementation that could be described as regressions are addressed. I
>> > would also like to see a performance analysis of a range of workloads
>> > before and after in as much detail as can be mustered, and would be
>> happy
>> > to volunteer to help out with that.
>> >
>>
>> Here's info on the points brought up:
>>
>> Encryption support shortcoming is being addrsessed here:
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-13693 (closed)
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-13720 (in review)
>>
>> Hbck has been actually run against the integration test rigs while the
>> feature has been enabled but currently has no explicit unit test or simple
>> to run integration test.  It currently doesn't report anything special
>> about the mob storage area. We can add unit tests that cover hbck when the
>> mob path is exercised.
>>
>> Another suggestion was a tool to check that mob references had
>> corresponding mob data.  We currently include a mr-based sweeper job that
>> could be used to perform this verification.  We can add this tool and
>> testing for the tool.
>>
>> I've done some performance testing and Jingcheng and his colleagues have
>> done significant amounts of performance testing. We currently have a blog
>> post in progress that will share the results of this performance testing.
>>
>> Jon.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 7:38 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > This is a useful feature, Jon.
>> >
>> > I went over the mega-patch and left some comments on review board.
>> >
>> > I noticed that hbck was not included in the patch. Neither did I find a
>> > sub-task of HBASE-11339 that covers hbck.
>> >
>> > Do you or Jingcheng plan to add MOB-aware capability for hbck ?
>> >
>> > Cheers
>> >
>> > On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 9:21 AM, Jonathan Hsieh <jon@cloudera.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Hi folks,
>> > >
>> > > The Medium Object (MOB) Storage feature (HBASE-11339[1]) is modified
>> I/O
>> > > and compaction path that allows individual moderately sized values
>> > > (10k-10MB) to be stored so that write amplification is reduced when
>> > > compared to the normal I/O path.   At a high level, it provides
>> alternate
>> > > flush and compaction mechanisms that segregates large cells into a
>> > separate
>> > > area where they are not subject to potentially frequent compaction and
>> > > splits that can be encountered in the normal I/O path. A more detailed
>> > > design doc can be found on the hbase-11339 jira.
>> > >
>> > > Jingcheng Du has been working on the mob feature for a while and
>> Anoop,
>> > Ram
>> > > and I have been shepherding him through the design revisions and
>> > > implementation of the feature in the hbase-11339 branch.[2]
>> > >
>> > > The branch we are proposing to merge into master is compatible with
>> > HBase's
>> > > core functionality including snapshots, replication, shell support,
>> > behaves
>> > > well with table alters, bulk loads and does not require external MR
>> > > processes. It has been documented, and subject to many integration
>> test
>> > > runs  (ITBLL, ITAcidGuarantees, ITIngest) including fault injection.
>> > > Performance testing of the feature shows what can be a 2x-3x
>> throughput
>> > > improvement for workloads that contain mobs. These results can be
>> seen on
>> > > the hbase 2.0 panel discussion slides from hbasecon (once published).
>> > >
>> > > Recently there have been some hfile encryption related shortcomings
>> that
>> > we
>> > > could address in branch or in master.
>> > >
>> > > Earlier iterations of the feature has been tested in production by
>> users
>> > > that Jingcheng has been responsible for.  A version has also been
>> > deployed
>> > > at users I have been responsible for.  Some of the folks from Huawei
>> > > (ashutosh) have also been submitting the recent encryption bug reports
>> > > against the hbase-11339 branch so there is some evidence of usage by
>> > them.
>> > >
>> > > The four of us  (Jingcheng, Ram, Anoop and I) are satisfied with the
>> > > feature and feel it is a good time to call a merge vote.  Ive posted a
>> > > megapatch version for folks who want to peruse the code. [3]
>> > >
>> > > What do you all think?
>> > >
>> > > Thanks,
>> > > Jingcheng, Jon, Ram, and Anoop.
>> > >
>> > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-11339
>> > > [2] https://github.com/apache/hbase/tree/hbase-11339
>> > > [3] https://reviews.apache.org/r/34475/
>> > > --
>> > > // Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
>> > > // HBase Tech Lead, Software Engineer, Cloudera
>> > > // jon@cloudera.com // @jmhsieh
>> > >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> // Jonathan Hsieh (shay)
>> // HBase Tech Lead, Software Engineer, Cloudera
>> // jon@cloudera.com // @jmhsieh
>>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message