hbase-issues mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Nick Dimiduk (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (HBASE-12728) buffered writes substantially less useful after removal of HTablePool
Date Thu, 08 Jan 2015 23:48:36 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-12728?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14270235#comment-14270235
] 

Nick Dimiduk commented on HBASE-12728:
--------------------------------------

+1 for BufferedMutator (over the rest). I don't think of this as "asynchronous" as much as
"batching".

+1 for doing away with changing the buffer size after construction.

We're working to get away from the H-prefix in class names. How about BufferedMutatorImpl?
Can the ExceptionListener be a nested interface under it's parent?

Nice work in pulling the write path up out of HTable. Much better than my inside-out refactoring.

nit: BufferedMutator#flushCommits can be just flush(); since HTable is delegating, BufferedMutator
is not bound to the old API.

Is there any place where a Lock implementation other than your DoNothingLock would be used?
All paths I read are using this no-op implementation... which means they can only be used
by a single thread? If I want to share a BufferedMutator across threads, I just pass in a
real Lock implementation? I guess that would come it for a "BufferedTable".

Agreed on locking down the BulkMutator constructor. I'm also not a fan of exposing this class
to the user API. I prefer the BufferedTable interface discussed previously. Wrap it up nice
and tidy like with new ConnectionFactory methods.

Can you add some example code so we can see how a use case like [~abeppu]'s would be addressed?

> 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
>            Priority: Blocker
>             Fix For: 1.0.0, 2.0.0, 1.1.0
>
>         Attachments: 12728.connection-owns-buffers.example.branch-1.0.patch, bulk-mutator.patch
>
>
> 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