hbase-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From S Ahmed <sahmed1...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: HBase parallel scanner performance
Date Sat, 19 May 2012 15:58:33 GMT
great thread for a real world problem.

Michael, it sounds like the initial design was more of a traditional db
solution, whereas with hbase (and nosql in general) the design is to
denormalize and build your row/cf structure to fit the use case.  Disks are
cheap, writes are fast, so build your index in order to scan for the
results you need.

On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 2:33 PM, Michael Segel <michael_segel@hotmail.com>wrote:

> No problem.
>
> One of the hardest things to do is to try to be open to other design ideas
> and not become wedded to one.
>
> I think once you get that working you can start to look at your cluster.
>
> On Apr 19, 2012, at 1:26 PM, Narendra yadala wrote:
>
> > Michael,
> >
> > I will do the redesign and build the index. Thanks a lot for the
> insights.
> >
> > Narendra
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 9:56 PM, Michael Segel <
> michael_segel@hotmail.com>wrote:
> >
> >> Narendra,
> >>
> >> I think you are still missing the point.
> >> 130 seconds to scan the table per iteration.
> >> Even if you have 10K rows
> >> 130 * 10^4 or 1.3*10^6 seconds.  ~361 hours
> >>
> >> Compare that to 10K rows where you then select a single row in your sub
> >> select that has a list of all of the associated rows.
> >> You can then do  n number of get()s based on the data in the index. (If
> >> the data wasn't in the index itself)
> >>
> >> Assuming that the data was in the index, that's one get(). This is sub
> >> second.
> >> Just to keep things simple assume 1 second.
> >> That's 10K seconds vs 1.3 million seconds.  (2 hours vs 361hours)
> >> Actually its more like 10ms  so its 100 seconds to run your code.  (So
> its
> >> like 2 minutes or so)
> >>
> >> Also since you're doing less work, you put less strain on the system.
> >>
> >> Look, you're asking for help. You're fighting to maintain a bad design.
> >> Building the index table shouldn't take you more than a day to think,
> >> design and implement.
> >>
> >> So you tell me, 2 minutes vs 361 hours. Which would you choose?
> >>
> >> HTH
> >>
> >> -Mike
> >>
> >>
> >> On Apr 19, 2012, at 10:04 AM, Narendra yadala wrote:
> >>
> >>> Michael,
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for the response. This is a real problem and not a class
> project.
> >>> Boxes itself costed 9k ;)
> >>>
> >>> I think there is some difference in understanding of the problem. The
> >> table
> >>> has 2m rows but I am looking at the latest 10k rows only in the outer
> for
> >>> loop. Only in the inner for loop i am trying to get all rows that
> contain
> >>> the url that is given by the row in the outer for loop. So pseudo code
> is
> >>> like this
> >>>
> >>> All scanners have a caching of 128.
> >>>
> >>> Scanner outerScanner =  tweetTable.getScanner(new Scan()); //This gets
> >> the
> >>> entire row
> >>> for (int index = 0; index < 10000; index++) {
> >>> Result tweet =  outerScanner.next();
> >>> NavigableMap<byte[],byte[]> linkFamilyMap =
> >>> tweet.getFamilyMap(Bytes.toBytes("link"));
> >>> String url = Bytes.toString( linkFamilyMap.firstKey());  //assuming
> only
> >>> one link is there in the tweet.
> >>> Scan linkScan = new Scan();
> >>> linkScan.addColumn(Bytes.toBytes("link"), Bytes.toBytes(url)); //get
> only
> >>> the link column family
> >>> Scanner linkScanner = tweetTable.getScanner(linkScan); //ideally this
> for
> >>> loop is taking 2 sec per sc
> >>> for (Result linkResult = linkScanner.next(); linkResult != null;
> >>> linkResult = linkScanner.next()) {
> >>>   //do something with the link
> >>> }
> >>> linkScanner.close();
> >>>
> >>>       //do a similar for loop for hashtags
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> Each of my inner for loop is taking around 20 seconds (or more
> depending
> >> on
> >>> number of rows returned by that particular scanner) for each of the 10k
> >>> rows that I am processing and this is also triggering a lot of GC in
> >> turn.
> >>> So it is 10000*40 seconds (4 days) for each thread. But the problem is
> >> that
> >>> the batch process crashes before completion throwing IOException and
> >>> SocketTimeoutException and sometimes GC OutOfMemory exceptions.
> >>>
> >>> I will definitely take the much elegant approach that you mentioned
> >>> eventually. I just wanted to get to the core of the issue before
> choosing
> >>> the solution.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks again.
> >>> Narendra
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 7:42 PM, Michel Segel <
> michael_segel@hotmail.com
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Narendra,
> >>>>
> >>>> Are you trying to solve a real problem, or is this a class project?
> >>>>
> >>>> Your solution doesn't scale. It's a non starter. 130 seconds for each
> >>>> iteration times 1 million seconds is how long? 130 million seconds,
> >> which
> >>>> is ~36000 hours or over 4 years to complete.
> >>>> (the numbers are rough but you get the idea...)
> >>>>
> >>>> That's assuming that your table is static and doesn't change.
> >>>>
> >>>> I didn't even ask if you were attempting any sort of server side
> >> filtering
> >>>> which would reduce the amount of data you send back to the client
> >> because
> >>>> it a moot point.
> >>>>
> >>>> Finer tuning is also moot.
> >>>>
> >>>> So you insert a row in one table. You then do n^2 operations to pull
> out
> >>>> data.
> >>>> The better solution is to insert data into 2 tables where you then
> have
> >> to
> >>>> do 2n operations to get the same results. Thats per thread btw.  So
if
> >> you
> >>>> were running 10 threads, you would have 10n^2  operations versus 20n
> >>>> operations to get the same result set.
> >>>>
> >>>> A million row table... 1*10^13. Vs 2*10^6
> >>>>
> >>>> I don't believe I mentioned anything about HBase's internals and this
> >>>> solution works for any NoSQL database.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Sent from a remote device. Please excuse any typos...
> >>>>
> >>>> Mike Segel
> >>>>
> >>>> On Apr 19, 2012, at 7:03 AM, Narendra yadala <
> narendra.yadala@gmail.com
> >>>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Hi Michel
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yes, that is exactly what I do in step 2. I am aware of the reason
> for
> >>>> the
> >>>>> scanner timeout exceptions. It is the time between two consecutive
> >>>>> invocations of the next call on a specific scanner object. I
> increased
> >>>> the
> >>>>> scanner timeout to 10 min on the region server and still I keep
> seeing
> >>>> the
> >>>>> timeouts. So I reduced my scanner cache to 128.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Full table scan takes 130 seconds and there are 2.2 million rows
in
> the
> >>>>> table as of now. Each row is around 2 KB in size. I measured time
for
> >> the
> >>>>> full table scan by issuing `count` command from the hbase shell.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I kind of understood the fix that you are specifying, but do I need
> to
> >>>>> change the table structure to fix this problem? All I do is a n^2
> >>>> operation
> >>>>> and even that fails with 10 different types of exceptions. It is
> mildly
> >>>>> annoying that I need to know all the low level storage details of
> HBase
> >>>> to
> >>>>> do such a simple operation. And this is happening for just 14
> parallel
> >>>>> scanners. I am wondering what would happen when there are thousands
> of
> >>>>> parallel scanners.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Please let me know if there is any configuration param change which
> >> would
> >>>>> fix this issue.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks a lot
> >>>>> Narendra
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 4:40 PM, Michel Segel <
> >> michael_segel@hotmail.com
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> So in your step 2 you have the following:
> >>>>>> FOREACH row IN TABLE alpha:
> >>>>>>  SELECT something
> >>>>>>  FROM TABLE alpha
> >>>>>>  WHERE alpha.url = row.url
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Right?
> >>>>>> And you are wondering why you are getting timeouts?
> >>>>>> ...
> >>>>>> ...
> >>>>>> And how long does it take to do a full table scan? ;-)
> >>>>>> (there's more, but that's the first thing you should see...)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Try creating a second table where you invert the URL and key
pair
> such
> >>>>>> that for each URL, you have a set of your alpha table's keys?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Then you have the following...
> >>>>>> FOREACH row IN TABLE alpha:
> >>>>>> FETCH key-set FROM beta
> >>>>>> WHERE beta.rowkey = alpha.url
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Note I use FETCH to signify that you should get a single row
in
> >>>> response.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Does this make sense?
> >>>>>> ( your second table is actually and index of the URL column
in your
> >>>> first
> >>>>>> table)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> HTH
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Sent from a remote device. Please excuse any typos...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Mike Segel
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Apr 19, 2012, at 5:43 AM, Narendra yadala <
> >> narendra.yadala@gmail.com
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I have an issue with my HBase cluster. We have a 4 node
> HBase/Hadoop
> >>>>>> (4*32
> >>>>>>> GB RAM and 4*6 TB disk space) cluster. We are using Cloudera
> >>>> distribution
> >>>>>>> for maintaining our cluster. I have a single tweets table
in which
> we
> >>>>>> store
> >>>>>>> the tweets, one tweet per row (it has millions of rows currently).
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Now I try to run a Java batch (not a map reduce) which does
the
> >>>>>> following :
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 1. Open a scanner over the tweet table and read the tweets
one
> after
> >>>>>>> another. I set scanner caching to 128 rows as higher scanner
> caching
> >>>> is
> >>>>>>> leading to ScannerTimeoutExceptions. I scan over the first
10k rows
> >>>>>> only.
> >>>>>>> 2. For each tweet, extract URLs (linkcolfamily:urlvalue)
that are
> >>>> there
> >>>>>>> in that tweet and open another scanner over the tweets table
to see
> >>>> who
> >>>>>>> else shared that link. This involves getting rows having
that URL
> >> from
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>>> entire table (not first 10k rows).
> >>>>>>> 3. Do similar stuff as in step 2 for hashtags
> >>>>>>> (hashtagcolfamily:hashtagvalue).
> >>>>>>> 4. Do steps 1-3 in parallel for approximately 7-8 threads.
This
> >> number
> >>>>>>> can be higher (thousands also) later.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> When I run this batch I got the GC issue which is specified
here
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> http://www.cloudera.com/blog/2011/02/avoiding-full-gcs-in-hbase-with-memstore-local-allocation-buffers-part-1/
> >>>>>>> Then I tried to turn on the MSLAB feature and changed the
GC
> settings
> >>>> by
> >>>>>>> specifying  -XX:+UseParNewGC  and  -XX:+UseConcMarkSweepGC
JVM
> flags.
> >>>>>>> Even after doing this, I am running into all kinds of IOExceptions
> >>>>>>> and SocketTimeoutExceptions.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> This Java batch opens approximately 7*2 (14) scanners open
at a
> point
> >>>> in
> >>>>>>> time and still I am running into all kinds of troubles.
I am
> >> wondering
> >>>>>>> whether I can have thousands of parallel scanners with HBase
when I
> >>>> need
> >>>>>> to
> >>>>>>> scale.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> It would be great to know whether I can open thousands/millions
of
> >>>>>> scanners
> >>>>>>> in parallel with HBase efficiently.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Thanks
> >>>>>>> Narendra
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> >>
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message