[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-8806?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13705001#comment-13705001
 ] 

rahul gidwani commented on HBASE-8806:
--------------------------------------

Hi Lars,

We at flurry have been running with this patch for the past month.  I have not 
noticed any significant performance impact for the "normal" case.  

Although we have seen significant improvements with replication.  

We are no longer seeing our replication queues growing on the sink side.  For 
some batches it would take upwards of 3 minutes to complete which would cause 
quite a backlog.  

With the patch applied this is no longer the case.

I have attached the performance test results. 

                
> Row locks are acquired repeatedly in HRegion.doMiniBatchMutation for 
> duplicate rows.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: HBASE-8806
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-8806
>             Project: HBase
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: regionserver
>    Affects Versions: 0.94.5
>            Reporter: rahul gidwani
>            Priority: Critical
>             Fix For: 0.98.0, 0.95.2, 0.94.10
>
>         Attachments: 8806-0.94-v4.txt, 8806-0.94-v5.txt, 8806-0.94-v6.txt, 
> HBASE-8806-0.94.10.patch, HBASE-8806-0.94.10-v2.patch, 
> HBASE-8806-0.94.10-v3.patch, HBASE-8806.patch, 
> HBASE-8806-threadBasedRowLocks.patch, 
> HBASE-8806-threadBasedRowLocks-v2.patch, row_lock_perf_results.txt
>
>
> If we already have the lock in the doMiniBatchMutation we don't need to 
> re-acquire it. The solution would be to keep a cache of the rowKeys already 
> locked for a miniBatchMutation and If we already have the 
> rowKey in the cache, we don't repeatedly try and acquire the lock.  A fix to 
> this problem would be to keep a set of rows we already locked and not try to 
> acquire the lock for these rows.  
> We have tested this fix in our production environment and has improved 
> replication performance quite a bit.  We saw a replication batch go from 3+ 
> minutes to less than 10 seconds for batches with duplicate row keys.
> {code}
> static final int ACQUIRE_LOCK_COUNT = 0;
>   @Test
>   public void testRedundantRowKeys() throws Exception {
>     final int batchSize = 100000;
>     
>     String tableName = getClass().getSimpleName();
>     Configuration conf = HBaseConfiguration.create();
>     conf.setClass(HConstants.REGION_IMPL, MockHRegion.class, HeapSize.class);
>     MockHRegion region = (MockHRegion) 
> TestHRegion.initHRegion(Bytes.toBytes(tableName), tableName, conf, 
> Bytes.toBytes("a"));
>     List<Pair<Mutation, Integer>> someBatch = Lists.newArrayList();
>     int i = 0;
>     while (i < batchSize) {
>       if (i % 2 == 0) {
>         someBatch.add(new Pair<Mutation, Integer>(new Put(Bytes.toBytes(0)), 
> null));
>       } else {
>         someBatch.add(new Pair<Mutation, Integer>(new Put(Bytes.toBytes(1)), 
> null));
>       }
>       i++;
>     }
>     long startTime = System.currentTimeMillis();
>     region.batchMutate(someBatch.toArray(new Pair[0]));
>     long endTime = System.currentTimeMillis();
>     long duration = endTime - startTime;
>     System.out.println("duration: " + duration + " ms");
>     assertEquals(2, ACQUIRE_LOCK_COUNT);
>   }
>   @Override
>   public Integer getLock(Integer lockid, byte[] row, boolean waitForLock) 
> throws IOException {
>     ACQUIRE_LOCK_COUNT++;
>     return super.getLock(lockid, row, waitForLock);
>   }
> {code}

--
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

Reply via email to