jackrabbit-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Timothée Maret <timothee.ma...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [FileVault][discuss] performance improvement proposal
Date Wed, 08 Mar 2017 08:14:05 GMT
Hi Thomas,

2017-03-07 15:09 GMT+01:00 Thomas Mueller <mueller@adobe.com>:

> Hi,
>
>
>
> I'm be glad to help you with the auto-detection, as I wrote that code (a
> long time ago).
>

I think your help is mandatory, given the level of voodoo in the five lines
you propose :-)
Actually I think it'd makes sense if you contributed the code, either in a
patch in JIRA or in your github and I'll pull from there. I think for now
the methods could go in a utility class under

https://github.com/apache/jackrabbit-filevault/tree/trunk/vault-core/src/main/java/org/apache/jackrabbit/vault/fs/impl/io

unless you see a better place to make it available.


> As I said, it's not a "perfect" solution, and you might want to tweak it
> for best results.
>

I agree. I did some preliminary tests with the "partial entropy" method on
the exporting the OOTB AEM /content/dam and it seems the algorithm works
but it does not get as fast as the content type detection method.

Maybe ultimately we could keep both heuristics.

Start with the content type detection that would match against MIME types
we know for sure are compressed (expected to be a reasonably fixed and
short list of MIME types).
If the content type is not matched, apply the auto-detection method for
files which are big enough to offset the extra processing.

To be tested further. I'll post more observations in JCRVLT-163 when I get
the time.


>
>
> I run a small test against a "out-of-the-box" repository and found 99% of
> the binaries are in a jcr:data property, and a mime type is available. This
> might not be the case for all repositories. The mix of mime types probably
> varies even more; in my case, over 90% were from 6 mime types
> (application/zip, application/java-archive, image/png,
> application/javascript, image/jpeg, text/css).
>
>
>
> > IMO we should still allow to tweak between best performance and best
> compression
>
>
>
> Yes, that makes sense!
>
>
>
> A global switch "compress everything regardless" sounds easy.
>
>
>
> A more complex solution would be to use a list of configurable mime types
> to _never_ compress, probably application/zip, application/java-archive,
> image/png, image/jpeg, video/mp4 or so. And for the rest a threshold, at
> which point to compress (an extreme value means compress everything else).
>

+1 the list of MIME types to never compress is what I used initially in
https://github.com/tmaret/jackrabbit-filevault/commit/e2630268833a9d69d5a7bb0064b87eaa4b6b0254

If we use the auto-detection method as fallback, I think we have a good
tradeoff between configuration annoyance (no exposed list of MIME types)
and performance gain (high for well known compressed files of any size,
high for any MIME type of size larger than a threshold).

Regards,

Timothee


>
>
> Regards,
>
> Thomas
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *<maret.timothee@gmail.com> on behalf of Timothée Maret <
> timothee.maret@gmail.com>
> *Reply-To: *"dev@jackrabbit.apache.org" <dev@jackrabbit.apache.org>
> *Date: *Tuesday, 7 March 2017 at 14:28
> *To: *"dev@jackrabbit.apache.org" <dev@jackrabbit.apache.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [FileVault][discuss] performance improvement proposal
>
>
>
> Hi Thomas,
>
>
>
> 2017-03-07 11:27 GMT+01:00 Thomas Mueller <mueller@adobe.com>:
>
> Hi,
>
> > As for configuration: What is the reason for having a configuration
> option ?
>
> Detecting if data is compressible can be done with low overhead, without
> having to look at the content type, and without having to use configuration
> options:
>
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7027022/how-to-
> efficiently-predict-if-data-is-compressible
>
> Sample code is available in one of the answers ("I implemented a few
> methods to test if data is compressible…"). It is quite simple, and only
> needs to process 256 bytes. Both the "Partial Entropy" and the "Simplified
> Compression" work relatively well.
>
> This is not designed to be a "perfect" solution for the problem. It's a
> low-overhead heuristic, that will reduce the compression overhead on the
> average.
>
>
>
> This sounds very nice :-) we could indeed drop the list of MIME type
> configuration.
>
>
>
> IMO we should still allow to tweak between best performance and best
> compression though, in order to accommodate different use cases.
>
> I thought about covering the two aspects in JCRVLT-163, but now changed
> the focus of JCRVLT-163 on avoiding compressing binaries (with or without
> auto-detection) and created JCRVLT-164 for allowing to tweak the default
> compression level.
>
>
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Timothee
>
>
>
>
> Regards,
> Thomas
>
>
>
>
>
> Am 06.03.2017 um 16:43 schrieb Timothée Maret <timothee.maret@gmail.com>:
>
> Hi,
>
> With Sling content distribution (using FileVault), we observe a
> significantly lower throughput for content packages containing binaries.
> The main bottleneck seems to be the compression algorithm applied to every
> element contained in the content package.
>
> I think that we could improve the throughput significantly, simply by
> avoiding to re-compress binaries that are already compressed.
> In order to figure out what binaries are already compressed, we could use
> match the content type stored along the binary against a list of
> configurable content types.
>
> I have done some micro tests with this idea (patch in [0]). I think that
> the results are promising.
>
> Exporting a single 250 MB JPEG is 80% faster (22.4 sec -> 4.3 sec) for a
> 3% bigger content package (233.2 MB -> 240.4 MB)
> Exporting AEM OOTB /content/dam is 50% faster (11.9 sec -> 5.9 sec) for a
> 5% bigger content package (92.8 MB -> 97.4 MB)
> Import for the same cases is 66% faster respectively 32% faster.
>
> I think this could either be done by default and allowing to configure the
> list of types that skip compression.
> Alternatively, it could be done on a project level, by extending FileVault
> with the following
>
> 1. For each package, allow to define the default compression level (best
> compression, best speed)
> 2. Expose an API that allow to plugin a custom logic to decide how to
> compress a given artefact
>
> In any case, the changes would be backward compatible. Content packages
> created with the new code would be installable on instances running the old
> code and vice versa.
>
> wdyt ?
>
> Regards,
>
> Timothee
>
>
> [0] https://github.com/tmaret/jackrabbit-filevault/tree/
> performance-avoid-compressing-already-compressed-binaries-
> based-on-content-type-detection
> [1] https://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/util/
> zip/Deflater.html#BEST_SPEED
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Timothée Maret
>



-- 
Timothée Maret

Mime
View raw message