From issues-return-332991-archive-asf-public=cust-asf.ponee.io@hbase.apache.org Thu Feb 8 09:41:04 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public@eu.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@eu.ponee.io Received: from cust-asf.ponee.io (cust-asf.ponee.io [163.172.22.183]) by mx-eu-01.ponee.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id 734CE18064F for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 09:41:04 +0100 (CET) Received: by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) id 635C0160C3D; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 08:41:04 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id AA2EF160C4A for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 09:41:03 +0100 (CET) Received: (qmail 66155 invoked by uid 500); 8 Feb 2018 08:41:02 -0000 Mailing-List: contact issues-help@hbase.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list issues@hbase.apache.org Received: (qmail 66144 invoked by uid 99); 8 Feb 2018 08:41:02 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd1-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 08 Feb 2018 08:41:02 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd1-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd1-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id 41953C0481 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 08:41:02 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd1-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.311 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.311 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH=-0.5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=disabled Received: from mx1-lw-us.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd1-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.7]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pvEP0vE6jl9n for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 08:41:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mailrelay1-us-west.apache.org (mailrelay1-us-west.apache.org [209.188.14.139]) by mx1-lw-us.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-lw-us.apache.org) with ESMTP id 28B465F24A for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 08:41:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from jira-lw-us.apache.org (unknown [207.244.88.139]) by mailrelay1-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mailrelay1-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id ADA1CE015F for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 08:41:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from jira-lw-us.apache.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jira-lw-us.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at jira-lw-us.apache.org) with ESMTP id 37E72240F2 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 08:41:00 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2018 08:41:00 +0000 (UTC) From: "Eshcar Hillel (JIRA)" To: issues@hbase.apache.org Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Subject: [jira] [Commented] (HBASE-18294) Reduce global heap pressure: flush based on heap occupancy MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-JIRA-FingerPrint: 30527f35849b9dde25b450d4833f0394 [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-18294?page=3Dcom.atlassia= n.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=3D163= 56649#comment-16356649 ]=20 Eshcar Hillel commented on HBASE-18294: --------------------------------------- [~anoop.hbase] {quote}=C2=A0the general agreement we made is for on heap cases, we must co= ntinue to check for 128 MB limit against the memstore heap size. Not just d= ata size. Also we have agreed that for off heap also, we will consider the = off heap size + heap overhead. {quote} From the beginning I aimed to have as symmetric behavior as possible of on-= heap and off-heap cases, so I don't believe I agreed on having two differen= t computations. One way to make it symmetric is to compare the two counters= against two thresholds. Another way to unify it is to always consider the = sum of off-heap and on-heap sizes at the region level. We still need to man= age two separate counters since the global bounds are different. bq. Ideally checking the data size alone here would have been the best way= . I mean for any decision per region level. You keep saying that but it seems to be based more on intuition rather than= on experiments. While considering both data and heap overhead for region l= evel flush have shown to improve the performance significantly. bq.When the size breach is because of off heap size, we have to select regi= ons having maximum data size and when breach because of on heap size limit,= select the regions with more heap overhead. Again, Why? you say we should have different decision making but you don't = explain why, and don't have numbers to support your claims. I argue that unless shown there is a great performance benefit in making di= fferent rules, on-heap and off heap should follow the same set of rules, em= bedding them with their respective bounds. So, I will make a new patch, leave only one flush size configuration proper= ty (remove off-heap flush size), flush size at the region level will always= consider on-heap+off-heap size. The rest will be similar to the current pa= tch. Patch will be ready in a few days. > Reduce global heap pressure: flush based on heap occupancy > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: HBASE-18294 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-18294 > Project: HBase > Issue Type: Improvement > Affects Versions: 3.0.0 > Reporter: Eshcar Hillel > Assignee: Eshcar Hillel > Priority: Major > Fix For: 2.0.0-beta-2 > > Attachments: HBASE-18294.01.patch, HBASE-18294.01.patch, HBASE-18= 294.01.patch, HBASE-18294.01.patch, HBASE-18294.02.patch, HBASE-18294.03.pa= tch, HBASE-18294.04.patch, HBASE-18294.05.patch, HBASE-18294.06.patch, HBAS= E-18294.07.patch, HBASE-18294.07.patch, HBASE-18294.08.patch, HBASE-18294.0= 9.patch, HBASE-18294.10.patch, HBASE-18294.11.patch, HBASE-18294.11.patch, = HBASE-18294.12.patch, HBASE-18294.13.patch, HBASE-18294.15.patch, HBASE-182= 94.16.patch, HBASE-18294.master.01.patch > > > A region is flushed if its memory component exceed a threshold (default s= ize is 128MB). > A flush policy decides whether to flush a store by comparing the size of = the store to another threshold (that can be configured with hbase.hregion.p= ercolumnfamilyflush.size.lower.bound). > Currently the implementation (in both cases) compares the data size (key-= value only) to the threshold where it should compare the heap size (which i= ncludes index size, and metadata). -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)