hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stack <st...@duboce.net>
Subject Re: Performance degradation between CDH5.3.1(HBase0.98.6) and CDH5.4.5(HBase1.0.0)
Date Mon, 30 Nov 2015 23:04:55 GMT
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 2:31 PM, Bryan Beaudreault <bbeaudreault@hubspot.com
> wrote:

> The rollback seems to have mostly solved the issue for one of our clusters,
> but another one is still seeing long increment times:
>
> "slowIncrementCount": 52080,
> "Increment_num_ops": 325236,"Increment_min": 1,"Increment_max": 6162,"
> Increment_mean": 465.68678129112396,"Increment_median": 216,"
> Increment_75th_percentile": 450.25,"Increment_95th_percentile":
> 1052.6499999999999,"Increment_99th_percentile": 1635.2399999999998
>
>
> Any ideas if there are other changes that may be causing a performance
> regression for increments between CDH4.7.1 and CDH5.3.8?
>
>
>
No.

Post a thread dump Bryan and it might prompt something.

St.Ack




>
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 4:13 PM Stack <stack@duboce.net> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 12:54 PM, Bryan Beaudreault <
> > bbeaudreault@hubspot.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Should this be added as a known issue in the CDH or hbase
> documentation?
> > It
> > > was a severe performance hit for us, all of our regionservers were
> > sitting
> > > at a few thousand queued requests.
> > >
> > >
> > Let me take care of that.
> > St.Ack
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 3:53 PM Bryan Beaudreault <
> > > bbeaudreault@hubspot.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Yea, they are all over the place and called from client and
> coprocessor
> > > > code. We ended up having no other option but to rollback, and aside
> > from
> > > a
> > > > few NoSuchMethodErrors due to API changes (Put#add vs Put#addColumn),
> > it
> > > > seems to be working and fixing our problem.
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 3:47 PM Stack <stack@duboce.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Rollback is untested. No fix in 5.5. I was going to work on this
> now.
> > > >> Where
> > > >> are your counters Bryan? In their own column family or scattered
> about
> > > in
> > > >> a
> > > >> row with other Cell types?
> > > >> St.Ack
> > > >>
> > > >> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 10:28 AM, Bryan Beaudreault <
> > > >> bbeaudreault@hubspot.com> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > Is there any update to this? We just upgraded all of our
> production
> > > >> > clusters from CDH4 to CDH5.4.7 and, not seeing this JIRA listed
in
> > the
> > > >> > known issues, did not not about this.  Now we are seeing
> perfomance
> > > >> issues
> > > >> > across all clusters, as we make heavy use of increments.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Can we roll forward to CDH5.5 to fix? Or is our only hope to
roll
> > back
> > > >> to
> > > >> > CDH 5.3.1 (if that is possible)?
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 5:06 AM 鈴木俊裕 <brfrn169@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > Thank you St.Ack!
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > I would like to follow the ticket.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Toshihiro Suzuki
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > 2015-09-22 14:14 GMT+09:00 Stack <stack@duboce.net>:
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > > Back to this problem. Simple tests confirm that as
is, the
> > > >> > > > single-queue-backed MVCC instance can slow Region ops
if some
> > > other
> > > >> row
> > > >> > > is
> > > >> > > > slow to complete. In particular Increment, checkAndPut,
and
> > batch
> > > >> > > mutations
> > > >> > > > are effected. I opened HBASE-14460 to start in on a
fix up.
> Lets
> > > >> see if
> > > >> > > we
> > > >> > > > can somehow scope mvcc to row or at least shard mvcc
so not
> all
> > > >> Region
> > > >> > > ops
> > > >> > > > are paused.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > St.Ack
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 4:15 AM, 鈴木俊裕 <brfrn169@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > Thank you for the below reasoning (with accompanying
> helpful
> > > >> > > diagram).
> > > >> > > > > > Makes sense. Let me hack up a test case to
help with the
> > > >> > > illustration.
> > > >> > > > It
> > > >> > > > > > is as though the mvcc should be scoped to
a row only...
> > Writes
> > > >> > > against
> > > >> > > > > > other rows should not hold up my read of
my row. Tag an
> mvcc
> > > >> with a
> > > >> > > > 'row'
> > > >> > > > > > scope so we can see which on-going writes
pertain to
> current
> > > >> > > operation?
> > > >> > > > > Thank you St.Ack! I think this approach would
work.
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > You need to read back the increment and have
it be
> 'correct'
> > > at
> > > >> > > > increment
> > > >> > > > > > time?
> > > >> > > > > Yes, we need it.
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > I would like to help if there is anything I can
do.
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > Thanks,
> > > >> > > > > Toshihiro Suzuki
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > 2015-09-13 14:11 GMT+09:00 Stack <stack@duboce.net>:
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > Thank you for the below reasoning (with accompanying
> helpful
> > > >> > > diagram).
> > > >> > > > > > Makes sense. Let me hack up a test case to
help with the
> > > >> > > illustration.
> > > >> > > > It
> > > >> > > > > > is as though the mvcc should be scoped to
a row only...
> > Writes
> > > >> > > against
> > > >> > > > > > other rows should not hold up my read of
my row. Tag an
> mvcc
> > > >> with a
> > > >> > > > 'row'
> > > >> > > > > > scope so we can see which on-going writes
pertain to
> current
> > > >> > > operation?
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > You need to read back the increment and have
it be
> 'correct'
> > > at
> > > >> > > > increment
> > > >> > > > > > time?
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > (This is a good one)
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > Thank you Toshihiro Suzuki
> > > >> > > > > > St.Ack
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 8:09 AM, 鈴木俊裕
<brfrn169@gmail.com
> >
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > St.Ack,
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > Thank you for your response.
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > Why I make out that "A region lock (not
a row lock)
> seems
> > to
> > > >> > occur
> > > >> > > in
> > > >> > > > > > > waitForPreviousTransactionsComplete()"
is as follows:
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > A increment operation has 3 procedures
for MVCC.
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > 1. mvcc.waitForPreviousTransactionsComplete();
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/cloudera/hbase/blob/cdh5.4.5-release/hbase-server/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/regionserver/HRegion.java#L6712
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > 2. w = mvcc.beginMemstoreInsertWithSeqNum(mvccNum);
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/cloudera/hbase/blob/cdh5.4.5-release/hbase-server/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/regionserver/HRegion.java#L6721
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > 3. mvcc.completeMemstoreInsertWithSeqNum(w,
walKey);
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/cloudera/hbase/blob/cdh5.4.5-release/hbase-server/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/regionserver/HRegion.java#L6893
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > I think that MultiVersionConsistencyControl's
writeQueue
> > can
> > > >> > cause
> > > >> > > a
> > > >> > > > > > region
> > > >> > > > > > > lock.
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/cloudera/hbase/blob/cdh5.4.5-release/hbase-server/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/regionserver/MultiVersionConsistencyControl.java#L42-L43
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > Step 2 adds to a WriteEntry to writeQueue.
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/cloudera/hbase/blob/cdh5.4.5-release/hbase-server/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/regionserver/MultiVersionConsistencyControl.java#L102-L108
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > Step 3 removes the WriteEntry from writeQueue.
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > completeMemstoreInsertWithSeqNum(w,
walKey) ->
> > > >> > > > > > > waitForPreviousTransactionsComplete(e)
->
> > advanceMemstore(w)
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/cloudera/hbase/blob/cdh5.4.5-release/hbase-server/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/regionserver/MultiVersionConsistencyControl.java#L127
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/cloudera/hbase/blob/cdh5.4.5-release/hbase-server/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/regionserver/MultiVersionConsistencyControl.java#L235
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/cloudera/hbase/blob/cdh5.4.5-release/hbase-server/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/regionserver/MultiVersionConsistencyControl.java#L160
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > Step 1 adds a WriteEntry w in beginMemstoreInsert()
to
> > > >> writeQueue
> > > >> > > and
> > > >> > > > > > waits
> > > >> > > > > > > until writeQueue is empty or writeQueue.getFirst()
== w.
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/cloudera/hbase/blob/cdh5.4.5-release/hbase-server/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/regionserver/MultiVersionConsistencyControl.java#L201-L204
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/cloudera/hbase/blob/cdh5.4.5-release/hbase-server/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/regionserver/MultiVersionConsistencyControl.java#L206-L241
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > I think when a handler thread is processing
between
> step 2
> > > and
> > > >> > step
> > > >> > > > 3,
> > > >> > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > > other handler threads can wait at step
1 until the
> thread
> > > >> > completes
> > > >> > > > > step
> > > >> > > > > > 3
> > > >> > > > > > > This is depicted as follows:
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://gist.githubusercontent.com/brfrn169/cb4f2c157129330cd932/raw/86d6aae5667b0fe006b16fed80f1b0c4945c7fd0/region_lock.png
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > Actually, in the thread dump of our
region server, many
> > > >> handler
> > > >> > > > threads
> > > >> > > > > > > (RW.default.writeRpcServer.handler)
wait at Step 1
> > > >> > > > > > > (waitForPreviousTransactionsComplete()).
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://gist.githubusercontent.com/brfrn169/cb4f2c157129330cd932/raw/86d6aae5667b0fe006b16fed80f1b0c4945c7fd0/thread_dump.txt
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > Many handler threads wait at this:
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/cloudera/hbase/blob/cdh5.4.5-release/hbase-server/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/regionserver/MultiVersionConsistencyControl.java#L224
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > Is it possible you are contending
on a counter
> > > post-upgrade?
> > > >> > Is
> > > >> > > it
> > > >> > > > > > > > possible that all these threads
are trying to get to
> the
> > > >> same
> > > >> > row
> > > >> > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > > update
> > > >> > > > > > > > it? Could the app behavior have
changed?  Or are you
> > > >> thinking
> > > >> > > > > increment
> > > >> > > > > > > > itself has slowed significantly?
> > > >> > > > > > > We have just upgraded HBase, not changed
the app
> behavior.
> > > We
> > > >> are
> > > >> > > > > > thinking
> > > >> > > > > > > increment itself has slowed significantly.
> > > >> > > > > > > Before upgrading HBase, it was good
throughput and
> > latency.
> > > >> > > > > > > Currently, to cope with this problem,
we split the
> regions
> > > >> > finely.
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > Toshihiro Suzuki
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > 2015-09-09 15:29 GMT+09:00 Stack <stack@duboce.net>:
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 10:22 PM,
鈴木俊裕 <
> > brfrn169@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > >> > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > Ted,
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > Thank you for your response.
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > I uploaded the complete stack
trace to Gist.
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> https://gist.github.com/brfrn169/cb4f2c157129330cd932
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > I think that increment operation
works as follows:
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > 1. get row lock
> > > >> > > > > > > > > 2. mvcc.waitForPreviousTransactionsComplete()
//
> wait
> > > for
> > > >> all
> > > >> > > > prior
> > > >> > > > > > > MVCC
> > > >> > > > > > > > > transactions to finish
> > > >> > > > > > > > > 3. mvcc.beginMemstoreInsertWithSeqNum()
// start a
> > > >> > transaction
> > > >> > > > > > > > > 4. get previous values
> > > >> > > > > > > > > 5. create KVs
> > > >> > > > > > > > > 6. write to Memstore
> > > >> > > > > > > > > 7. write to WAL
> > > >> > > > > > > > > 8. release row lock
> > > >> > > > > > > > > 9. mvcc.completeMemstoreInsertWithSeqNum()
//
> complete
> > > the
> > > >> > > > > > transaction
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > A instance of MultiVersionConsistencyControl
has a
> > > pending
> > > >> > > queue
> > > >> > > > of
> > > >> > > > > > > > writes
> > > >> > > > > > > > > named writeQueue.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > Step 2 puts a WriteEntry w
to writeQueue and waits
> > until
> > > >> > > > writeQueue
> > > >> > > > > > is
> > > >> > > > > > > > > empty or writeQueue.getFirst()
== w.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > Step 3 puts a WriteEntry to
writeQueue and step 9
> > > removes
> > > >> the
> > > >> > > > > > > WriteEntry
> > > >> > > > > > > > > from writeQueue.
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > I think that when a handler
thread is processing
> > between
> > > >> > step 2
> > > >> > > > and
> > > >> > > > > > > step
> > > >> > > > > > > > 9,
> > > >> > > > > > > > > the other handler threads
can wait until the thread
> > > >> completes
> > > >> > > > step
> > > >> > > > > 9.
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > That is right. We need to read,
after all outstanding
> > > >> updates
> > > >> > are
> > > >> > > > > > done...
> > > >> > > > > > > > because we need to read the latest
update before we go
> > to
> > > >> > > > > > > modify/increment
> > > >> > > > > > > > it.
> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > How do you make out this?
> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > "A region lock (not a row lock)
seems to occur in
> > > >> > > > > > > > waitForPreviousTransactionsComplete()."
> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > In 0.98.x we did this:
> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > >
> mvcc.completeMemstoreInsert(mvcc.beginMemstoreInsert());
> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > ... and in 1.0 we do this:
> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > mvcc.waitForPreviousTransactionsComplete()
which is
> > > this....
> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > +  public void waitForPreviousTransactionsComplete()
{
> > > >> > > > > > > > +    WriteEntry w = beginMemstoreInsert();
> > > >> > > > > > > > +    waitForPreviousTransactionsComplete(w);
> > > >> > > > > > > > +  }
> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > The mvcc and region sequenceid
were merged in 1.0 (
> > > >> > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-8763).
> > > Previous
> > > >> > mvcc
> > > >> > > > and
> > > >> > > > > > > > region
> > > >> > > > > > > > sequenceid would spin independent
of each other.
> Perhaps
> > > >> this
> > > >> > > > > > responsible
> > > >> > > > > > > > for some slow down.
> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > That said, looking in your thread
dump, we seem to be
> > down
> > > >> in
> > > >> > the
> > > >> > > > > Get.
> > > >> > > > > > If
> > > >> > > > > > > > you do a bunch of thread dumps
in a row, where is the
> > > >> > > lock-holding
> > > >> > > > > > > thread?
> > > >> > > > > > > > In Get or writing Increment...
or waiting on sequence
> > id?
> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > Is it possible you are contending
on a counter
> > > post-upgrade?
> > > >> > Is
> > > >> > > it
> > > >> > > > > > > > possible that all these threads
are trying to get to
> the
> > > >> same
> > > >> > row
> > > >> > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > > update
> > > >> > > > > > > > it? Could the app behavior have
changed?  Or are you
> > > >> thinking
> > > >> > > > > increment
> > > >> > > > > > > > itself has slowed significantly?
> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > St.Ack
> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > Toshihiro Suzuki
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > 2015-09-09 0:05 GMT+09:00
Ted Yu <
> yuzhihong@gmail.com
> > >:
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > In HRegion#increment(),
we lock the row (not
> > region):
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >     try {
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >       rowLock = getRowLock(row);
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > Can you pastebin the
complete stack trace ?
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > Thanks
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at
2:01 AM, 鈴木俊裕 <
> > > >> brfrn169@gmail.com>
> > > >> > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > We upgraded our
cluster from
> CDH5.3.1(HBase0.98.6)
> > > to
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > CDH5.4.5(HBase1.0.0)
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > and we experience
slowdown in increment
> operation.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Here's an extract
from thread dump of the
> > > >> RegionServer of
> > > >> > > our
> > > >> > > > > > > > cluster:
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Thread 68
> > > >> > > > > > >
> (RW.default.writeRpcServer.handler=15,queue=5,port=60020):
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >   State: BLOCKED
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >   Blocked count:
21689888
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >   Waited count:
39828360
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >   Blocked on java.util.LinkedList@3474e4b2
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >   Blocked by 63
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > (RW.default.writeRpcServer.handler=10,queue=0,port=60020)
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >   Stack:
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >     java.lang.Object.wait(Native
Method)
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> org.apache.hadoop.hbase.regionserver.MultiVersionConsistencyControl.waitForPreviousTransactionsComplete(MultiVersionConsistencyControl.java:224)
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> org.apache.hadoop.hbase.regionserver.MultiVersionConsistencyControl.waitForPreviousTransactionsComplete(MultiVersionConsistencyControl.java:203)
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >>
> > >
> org.apache.hadoop.hbase.regionserver.HRegion.increment(HRegion.java:6712)
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> org.apache.hadoop.hbase.regionserver.RSRpcServices.increment(RSRpcServices.java:501)
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> org.apache.hadoop.hbase.regionserver.RSRpcServices.doNonAtomicRegionMutation(RSRpcServices.java:570)
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> org.apache.hadoop.hbase.regionserver.RSRpcServices.multi(RSRpcServices.java:1901)
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> org.apache.hadoop.hbase.protobuf.generated.ClientProtos$ClientService$2.callBlockingMethod(ClientProtos.java:31451)
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > org.apache.hadoop.hbase.ipc.RpcServer.call(RpcServer.java:2035)
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > org.apache.hadoop.hbase.ipc.CallRunner.run(CallRunner.java:107)
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> org.apache.hadoop.hbase.ipc.RpcExecutor.consumerLoop(RpcExecutor.java:130)
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > org.apache.hadoop.hbase.ipc.RpcExecutor$1.run(RpcExecutor.java:107)
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >     java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:745)
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > There are many similar
threads in the thread
> dump.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > I read the source
code and I think this is
> caused
> > by
> > > >> > > changes
> > > >> > > > of
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > MultiVersionConsistencyControl.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > A region lock (not
a row lock) seems to occur in
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > waitForPreviousTransactionsComplete().
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Also we wrote performance
test code for
> increment
> > > >> > operation
> > > >> > > > > that
> > > >> > > > > > > > > included
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > 100 threads and
ran it in local mode.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > The result is shown
below:
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > CDH5.3.1(HBase0.98.6)
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Throughput(op/s):
12757, Latency(ms):
> > > >> 7.975072509210629
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > CDH5.4.5(HBase1.0.0)
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Throughput(op/s):
2027, Latency(ms):
> > > 49.11840157868772
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Toshihiro Suzuki
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

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