hbase-issues mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Kahlil Oppenheimer (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (HBASE-17707) New More Accurate Table Skew cost function/generator
Date Wed, 22 Mar 2017 15:29:42 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-17707?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15936530#comment-15936530

Kahlil Oppenheimer commented on HBASE-17707:

Sorry, I just realized it was unclear because the unit test was pre-existing (before my patch)
for the old table skew cost function, but now applies to the new one. It is found at TestStochasticLoadBalancer::testTableSkewCost.
Also it *is* a hard guarantee that {{numMovesPerTable <= pathologicalNumMoves}}. I made
sure to be consistent with the other cost functions when creating this one.

The issue is that the old table skew cost function was fundamentally broken. It did not change
its cost estimate as the balancer proposed region moves/swaps, meaning the table skew cost
it estimated at the beginning of balancing was often the same as at the end, which meant it
actually played no role in the balancing at all. I have a separate issue open HBASE-17706
that fixes the behavior in the old TableSkewCostFunction if people would still like to use
it. But I can't merge that one until this one gets resolved. In any case, it does not surprise
me that this new cost function would alter behavior because we are effectively having table
skew considered for the first time in the balancing process.

I'll go ahead and rebase/resubmit a new patch that includes the new table skew stuff as well
as the fix to the region replica host cost function.

> New More Accurate Table Skew cost function/generator
> ----------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: HBASE-17707
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-17707
>             Project: HBase
>          Issue Type: New Feature
>          Components: Balancer
>    Affects Versions: 1.2.0
>         Environment: CentOS Derivative with a derivative of the 3.18.43 kernel. HBase
on CDH5.9.0 with some patches. HDFS CDH 5.9.0 with no patches.
>            Reporter: Kahlil Oppenheimer
>            Assignee: Kahlil Oppenheimer
>            Priority: Minor
>             Fix For: 2.0
>         Attachments: HBASE-17707-00.patch, HBASE-17707-01.patch, HBASE-17707-02.patch,
HBASE-17707-03.patch, HBASE-17707-04.patch, HBASE-17707-05.patch, HBASE-17707-06.patch, HBASE-17707-07.patch,
HBASE-17707-08.patch, HBASE-17707-09.patch, HBASE-17707-11.patch, HBASE-17707-11.patch, test-balancer2-13617.out
> This patch includes new version of the TableSkewCostFunction and a new TableSkewCandidateGenerator.
> The new TableSkewCostFunction computes table skew by counting the minimal number of region
moves required for a given table to perfectly balance the table across the cluster (i.e. as
if the regions from that table had been round-robin-ed across the cluster). This number of
moves is computer for each table, then normalized to a score between 0-1 by dividing by the
number of moves required in the absolute worst case (i.e. the entire table is stored on one
server), and stored in an array. The cost function then takes a weighted average of the average
and maximum value across all tables. The weights in this average are configurable to allow
for certain users to more strongly penalize situations where one table is skewed versus where
every table is a little bit skewed. To better spread this value more evenly across the range
0-1, we take the square root of the weighted average to get the final value.
> The new TableSkewCandidateGenerator generates region moves/swaps to optimize the above
TableSkewCostFunction. It first simply tries to move regions until each server has the right
number of regions, then it swaps regions around such that each region swap improves table
skew across the cluster.
> We tested the cost function and generator in our production clusters with 100s of TBs
of data and 100s of tables across dozens of servers and found both to be very performant and

This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA

View raw message