[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-1505?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13530300#comment-13530300
]
Alexander Shraer commented on ZOOKEEPER-1505:
---------------------------------------------
Hi Jay,
thanks a lot for the explanation!
Another alternative may be to make the thread responsible for client's
operations also handle watch events for that client. For example C2 would tell
C1 that there was a watch event and C1 will notify client B. Do you think this
would address the problem ?
BTW, the only ordering for watches I found mentioned in the programmers guide
is "ZooKeeper provides an ordering guarantee: a client will never see a change
for which it has set a watch until it first sees the watch event." We get
another ordering guarantee from the fact that the watch is fired after the data
has been changed - we can probably conclude that if you invoke a read after
seeing a watch event, you'll read the new data. But in scenario 1 you seem to
be talking about a stronger guarantee assumed by the client.
Alex
> Multi-thread CommitProcessor
> ----------------------------
>
> Key: ZOOKEEPER-1505
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-1505
> Project: ZooKeeper
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: server
> Affects Versions: 3.4.3, 3.4.4, 3.5.0
> Reporter: Jay Shrauner
> Assignee: Jay Shrauner
> Labels: performance, scaling
> Fix For: 3.5.0
>
> Attachments: ZOOKEEPER-1505.patch, ZOOKEEPER-1505.patch,
> ZOOKEEPER-1505.patch, ZOOKEEPER-1505.patch
>
>
> CommitProcessor has a single thread that both pulls requests off its queues
> and runs all downstream processors. This is noticeably inefficient for
> read-intensive workloads, which could be run concurrently. The trick is
> handling write transactions. I propose multi-threading this code according to
> the following two constraints
> - each session must see its requests responded to in order
> - all committed transactions must be handled in zxid order, across all
> sessions
> I believe these cover the only constraints we need to honor. In particular, I
> believe we can relax the following:
> - it does not matter if the read request in one session happens before or
> after the write request in another session
> With these constraints, I propose the following threads
> - 1 primary queue servicing/work dispatching thread
> - 0-N assignable worker threads, where a given session is always assigned
> to the same worker thread
> By assigning sessions always to the same worker thread (using a simple
> sessionId mod number of worker threads), we guarantee the first constraint--
> requests we push onto the thread queue are processed in order. The way we
> guarantee the second constraint is we only allow a single commit transaction
> to be in flight at a time--the queue servicing thread blocks while a commit
> transaction is in flight, and when the transaction completes it clears the
> flag.
> On a 32 core machine running Linux 2.6.38, achieved best performance with 32
> worker threads for a 56% +/- 5% improvement in throughput (this improvement
> was measured on top of that for ZOOKEEPER-1504, not in isolation).
> New classes introduced in this patch are:
> WorkerService (also in ZOOKEEPER-1504): ExecutorService wrapper that
> makes worker threads daemon threads and names then in an easily debuggable
> manner. Supports assignable threads (as used here) and non-assignable threads
> (as used by NIOServerCnxnFactory).
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
