hbase-issues mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "nkeywal (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (HBASE-4195) Possible inconsistency in a memstore read after a reseek, possible performance improvement
Date Thu, 08 Sep 2011 07:59:08 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-4195?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13100139#comment-13100139
] 

nkeywal commented on HBASE-4195:
--------------------------------

@stack: yes I am ok with all your points. Thanks! Some details below:

bq. Are seek and reseek the same now? Or it seems like they have a bunch of common code...
can we factor it out to common method if so?

The initialization of kvTail & snapshotTail differs, then it's the same code. There are
only 6 lines of code, but I aggree, it would be cleaner if shared in a private method (this
would simplify as well the improvement on peek)


bq. We're fixing a bug where we may miss a Put if a flush comes in in meantime because we
won't have a running Iterator on new KVSet (but maybe this is not such a big deal - perhaps
- because its unlikely the new Put will be within the purview of the current read point?

That's what I expect. Note that between the 3 implementations:
- the initial one: it was impossible because we were just using the iterator without going
back to the list.
- the one currently in the tunk: possible because we're restarting from the very beginning
of the list.
- the proposed one; in the middle: we're not restarting from the beginning from from an intermediate
point of the list.

So we're not in the same situation as we were 2 years ago, but I expect (without having done
a full analysis) that the readpoint will hide this.

The best of the best, in terms of performance and similarity to the initial implementation,
would be to get the sub-skiplist implictly pointed by the iterator, but there is nothing in
the Java API to do it today: it would require to implement a specific skip list.

> Possible inconsistency in a memstore read after a reseek, possible performance improvement
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: HBASE-4195
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-4195
>             Project: HBase
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: regionserver
>    Affects Versions: 0.90.4
>         Environment: all
>            Reporter: nkeywal
>            Assignee: nkeywal
>            Priority: Critical
>             Fix For: 0.90.5
>
>         Attachments: 20110824_4195_MemStore.patch, 20110824_4195_TestHRegion.patch
>
>
> This follows the dicussion around HBASE-3855, and the random errors (20% failure on trunk)
on the unit test org.apache.hadoop.hbase.regionserver.TestHRegion.testWritesWhileGetting
> I saw some points related to numIterReseek, used in the MemStoreScanner#getNext (line
690):
> {noformat}679	    protected KeyValue getNext(Iterator it) {
> 680	      KeyValue ret = null;
> 681	      long readPoint = ReadWriteConsistencyControl.getThreadReadPoint();
> 682	      //DebugPrint.println( " MS@" + hashCode() + ": threadpoint = " + readPoint);
> 683	 
> 684	      while (ret == null && it.hasNext()) {
> 685	        KeyValue v = it.next();
> 686	        if (v.getMemstoreTS() <= readPoint) {
> 687	          // keep it.
> 688	          ret = v;
> 689	        }
> 690	        numIterReseek--;
> 691	        if (numIterReseek == 0) {
> 692	          break;
> 693	         }
> 694	      }
> 695	      return ret;
> 696	    }{noformat}
> This function is called by seek, reseek, and next. The numIterReseek is only usefull
for reseek.
> There are some issues, I am not totally sure it's the root cause of the test case error,
but it could explain partly the randomness of the error, and one point is for sure a bug.
> 1) In getNext, numIterReseek is decreased, then compared to zero. The seek function sets
numIterReseek to zero before calling getNext. It means that the value will be actually negative,
hence the test will always fail, and the loop will continue. It is the expected behaviour,
but it's quite smart.
> 2) In "reseek", numIterReseek is not set between the loops on the two iterators. If the
numIterReseek is equals to zero after the loop on the first one, the loop on the second one
will never call seek, as numIterReseek will be negative.
> 3) Still in "reseek", the test to call "seek" is (kvsetNextRow == null && numIterReseek
== 0). In other words, if kvsetNextRow is not null when numIterReseek equals zero, numIterReseek
will start to be negative at the next iteration and seek will never be called.
> 4) You can have side effects if reseek ends with a numIterReseek > 0: the following
calls to the "next" function will decrease numIterReseek to zero, and getNext will break instead
of continuing the loop. As a result, later calls to next() may return null or not depending
on how is configured the default value for numIterReseek.
> To check if the issue comes from point 4, you can set the numIterReseek to zero before
returning in reseek:
> {noformat}      numIterReseek = 0;
>       return (kvsetNextRow != null || snapshotNextRow != null);
>     }{noformat}
> On my env, on trunk, it seems to work, but as it's random I am not really sure. I also
had to modify the test (I added a loop) to make it fails more often, the original test was
working quite well here.
> It has to be confirmed that this totally fix (it could be partial or unrelated) org.apache.hadoop.hbase.regionserver.TestHRegion.testWritesWhileGetting
before implementing a complete solution.

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

        

Mime
View raw message