lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Michael McCandless (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-2573) Tiered flushing of DWPTs by RAM with low/high water marks
Date Tue, 07 Sep 2010 09:35:33 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2573?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12906723#action_12906723
] 

Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-2573:
--------------------------------------------

bq. We probably need a test that delays the flush process, otherwise flushing to RAM occurs
too fast to proceed to the next tier.

We can modify MockRAMDir to optionally "take its sweet time" when writing certain files?

{quote}
I'm not sure if after a DWPT is flushing we need to decrement what would effectively be a
"projected RAM usage post current DWPT flush completion". Otherwise we could in many cases,
start the flush of most/all of the DWPTs.
{quote}

But shouldn't tiered flushing take care of this?  Ie you only decr RAM consumed when the flush
of the DWPT finishes, not before?

bq. The DWPT that happens to exceed the first tier, is flushed out. This was easier to implement
than finding the highest RAM consuming DWPT and flushing it, from a different thread.

Hmm but this won't be most efficient, in general?  Ie we could end up creating tiny segments
depending on luck-of-the-thread-scheduling?

bq. I did a search through the code and ByteBlockAllocator.perDocAllocator has no references,
it can probably be removed, unless there was some other intention for it.

I think this makes sense -- each DWPT now immediately flushes to its private doc store files,
so there's no longer a need to track per-doc pending RAM?

{quote}
In DocumentsWriterRAMAllocator, we're only recording the addition of more bytes when a new
block is created, however because previous blocks may be recycled, it is the recycled blocks
that are not being recorded as bytes used. Should we record all allocated blocks as "in use"
ie, count them as bytes used, or wait until they are "in use" again to be counted as consuming
RAM?
{quote}

I think we have to track both.  If a buffer is not in the pool (ie not free), then it's in
use and we count that as RAM used, and that counter is used to trigger tiered flushing.  Separately
we have to track net allocated, in order to trim the buffers (drop them, so GC can reclaim)
when we are over the .setRAMBufferSizeMB.

> Tiered flushing of DWPTs by RAM with low/high water marks
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LUCENE-2573
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2573
>             Project: Lucene - Java
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>            Reporter: Michael Busch
>            Assignee: Michael Busch
>            Priority: Minor
>             Fix For: Realtime Branch
>
>         Attachments: LUCENE-2573.patch
>
>
> Now that we have DocumentsWriterPerThreads we need to track total consumed RAM across
all DWPTs.
> A flushing strategy idea that was discussed in LUCENE-2324 was to use a tiered approach:
 
> - Flush the first DWPT at a low water mark (e.g. at 90% of allowed RAM)
> - Flush all DWPTs at a high water mark (e.g. at 110%)
> - Use linear steps in between high and low watermark:  E.g. when 5 DWPTs are used, flush
at 90%, 95%, 100%, 105% and 110%.
> Should we allow the user to configure the low and high water mark values explicitly using
total values (e.g. low water mark at 120MB, high water mark at 140MB)?  Or shall we keep for
simplicity the single setRAMBufferSizeMB() config method and use something like 90% and 110%
for the water marks?

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org


Mime
View raw message