[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-1177?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13180952#comment-13180952 ]
Patrick Hunt commented on ZOOKEEPER-1177: ----------------------------------------- Zhihong - I searched around a bit but didn't find that, I'll take a look (it's ASL licensed), thanks! > Enabling a large number of watches for a large number of clients > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: ZOOKEEPER-1177 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-1177 > Project: ZooKeeper > Issue Type: Improvement > Components: server > Affects Versions: 3.3.3 > Reporter: Vishal Kathuria > Assignee: Vishal Kathuria > Fix For: 3.5.0 > > Attachments: ZOOKEEPER-1177.patch, ZOOKEEPER-1177.patch, > ZooKeeper-with-fix-for-findbugs-warning.patch, ZooKeeper.patch, > Zookeeper-after-resolving-merge-conflicts.patch > > > In my ZooKeeper, I see watch manager consuming several GB of memory and I dug > a bit deeper. > In the scenario I am testing, I have 10K clients connected to an observer. > There are about 20K znodes in ZooKeeper, each is about 1K - so about 20M data > in total. > Each client fetches and puts watches on all the znodes. That is 200 million > watches. > It seems a single watch takes about 100 bytes. I am currently at 14528037 > watches and according to the yourkit profiler, WatchManager has 1.2 G > already. This is not going to work as it might end up needing 20G of RAM just > for the watches. > So we need a more compact way of storing watches. Here are the possible > solutions. > 1. Use a bitmap instead of the current hashmap. In this approach, each znode > would get a unique id when its gets created. For every session, we can keep > track of a bitmap that indicates the set of znodes this session is watching. > A bitmap, assuming a 100K znodes, would be 12K. For 10K sessions, we can keep > track of watches using 120M instead of 20G. > 2. This second idea is based on the observation that clients watch znodes in > sets (for example all znodes under a folder). Multiple clients watch the same > set and the total number of sets is a couple of orders of magnitude smaller > than the total number of znodes. In my scenario, there are about 100 sets. So > instead of keeping track of watches at the znode level, keep track of it at > the set level. It may mean that get may also need to be implemented at the > set level. With this, we can save the watches in 100M. > Are there any other suggestions of solutions? > Thanks > -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators: https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira