hbase-issues mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Enis Soztutar (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (HBASE-12728) buffered writes substantially less useful after removal of HTablePool
Date Tue, 06 Jan 2015 23:31:34 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-12728?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14266961#comment-14266961
] 

Enis Soztutar commented on HBASE-12728:
---------------------------------------

I think API wise, what Carter proposes above makes sense with a couple of comments. 

 - I think {{BufferedTable}} should be an interface still with {{flush()}} or {{flushCommits()}}
method. 
 - {{ExceptionListener}} should also get the original {{Put}} so that it can learn about which
operation has failed (not just the exception). 
 - Do we want AsyncPutter, etc to be client-public API at all? I like the {{BufferedConnection}}
route where we can have getBufferedTable() method to construct this and not worry about any
class. However do we want to address doing puts() with flush and doing async flush by the
same client? Does the client maintain two Connection objects? 
 - Should the interfaces be {{Put}} based or {{Mutation}} based? We can make it generic in
case of we add Delete's later on, but may not be worth the extra cost. 

bq. BufferedTable#close does not flush since we need to support batching across multiple threads.
AsyncPutter#close does flush. 
Seems a bit unintuitive. If we do the BufferedConnection route, the only way to flush everything
is to 

bq. Do we need a timeout-based flush?
It makes sense, but this can be added later I say. 

> buffered writes substantially less useful after removal of HTablePool
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: HBASE-12728
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-12728
>             Project: HBase
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: hbase
>    Affects Versions: 0.98.0
>            Reporter: Aaron Beppu
>            Assignee: Solomon Duskis
>             Fix For: 1.0.0, 2.0.0, 1.1.0
>
>
> In previous versions of HBase, when use of HTablePool was encouraged, HTable instances
were long-lived in that pool, and for that reason, if autoFlush was set to false, the table
instance could accumulate a full buffer of writes before a flush was triggered. Writes from
the client to the cluster could then be substantially larger and less frequent than without
buffering.
> However, when HTablePool was deprecated, the primary justification seems to have been
that creating HTable instances is cheap, so long as the connection and executor service being
passed to it are pre-provided. A use pattern was encouraged where users should create a new
HTable instance for every operation, using an existing connection and executor service, and
then close the table. In this pattern, buffered writes are substantially less useful; writes
are as small and as frequent as they would have been with autoflush=true, except the synchronous
write is moved from the operation itself to the table close call which immediately follows.
> More concretely :
> ```
> // Given these two helpers ...
> private HTableInterface getAutoFlushTable(String tableName) throws IOException {
>   // (autoflush is true by default)
>   return storedConnection.getTable(tableName, executorService);
> }
> private HTableInterface getBufferedTable(String tableName) throws IOException {
>   HTableInterface table = getAutoFlushTable(tableName);
>   table.setAutoFlush(false);
>   return table;
> }
> // it's my contention that these two methods would behave almost identically,
> // except the first will hit a synchronous flush during the put call,
> and the second will
> // flush during the (hidden) close call on table.
> private void writeAutoFlushed(Put somePut) throws IOException {
>   try (HTableInterface table = getAutoFlushTable(tableName)) {
>     table.put(somePut); // will do synchronous flush
>   }
> }
> private void writeBuffered(Put somePut) throws IOException {
>   try (HTableInterface table = getBufferedTable(tableName)) {
>     table.put(somePut);
>   } // auto-close will trigger synchronous flush
> }
> ```
> For buffered writes to actually provide a performance benefit to users, one of two things
must happen:
> - The writeBuffer itself shouldn't live, flush and die with the lifecycle of it's HTableInstance.
If the writeBuffer were managed elsewhere and had a long lifespan, this could cease to be
an issue. However, if the same writeBuffer is appended to by multiple tables, then some additional
concurrency control will be needed around it.
> - Alternatively, there should be some pattern for having long-lived HTable instances.
However, since HTable is not thread-safe, we'd need multiple instances, and a mechanism for
leasing them out safely -- which sure sounds a lot like the old HTablePool to me.
> See discussion on mailing list here : http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/hbase-user/201412.mbox/%3CCAPdJLkEzmUQZ_kvD%3D8mrxi4V%3DhCmUp3g9MUZsddD%2Bmon%2BAvNtg%40mail.gmail.com%3E



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

Mime
View raw message