[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-7667?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
 ]

Sergey Shelukhin resolved HBASE-7667.
-------------------------------------

       Resolution: Fixed
    Fix Version/s: 0.99.0
                   0.98.0

All the pertinent patches have been committed for some time (before 98 was 
branched).

> Support stripe compaction
> -------------------------
>
>                 Key: HBASE-7667
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-7667
>             Project: HBase
>          Issue Type: New Feature
>          Components: Compaction
>            Reporter: Sergey Shelukhin
>            Assignee: Sergey Shelukhin
>             Fix For: 0.98.0, 0.99.0
>
>         Attachments: Stripe compaction perf evaluation.pdf, Stripe compaction 
> perf evaluation.pdf, Stripe compaction perf evaluation.pdf, Stripe 
> compactions.pdf, Stripe compactions.pdf, Stripe compactions.pdf, Stripe 
> compactions.pdf, Using stripe compactions.pdf, Using stripe compactions.pdf, 
> Using stripe compactions.pdf, stripe-cdf.pdf
>
>
> So I was thinking about having many regions as the way to make compactions 
> more manageable, and writing the level db doc about how level db range 
> overlap and data mixing breaks seqNum sorting, and discussing it with Jimmy, 
> Matteo and Ted, and thinking about how to avoid Level DB I/O multiplication 
> factor.
> And I suggest the following idea, let's call it stripe compactions. It's a 
> mix between level db ideas and having many small regions.
> It allows us to have a subset of benefits of many regions (wrt reads and 
> compactions) without many of the drawbacks (managing and current 
> memstore/etc. limitation).
> It also doesn't break seqNum-based file sorting for any one key.
> It works like this.
> The region key space is separated into configurable number of fixed-boundary 
> stripes (determined the first time we stripe the data, see below).
> All the data from memstores is written to normal files with all keys present 
> (not striped), similar to L0 in LevelDb, or current files.
> Compaction policy does 3 types of compactions.
> First is L0 compaction, which takes all L0 files and breaks them down by 
> stripe. It may be optimized by adding more small files from different 
> stripes, but the main logical outcome is that there are no more L0 files and 
> all data is striped.
> Second is exactly similar to current compaction, but compacting one single 
> stripe. In future, nothing prevents us from applying compaction rules and 
> compacting part of the stripe (e.g. similar to current policy with rations 
> and stuff, tiers, whatever), but for the first cut I'd argue let it "major 
> compact" the entire stripe. Or just have the ratio and no more complexity.
> Finally, the third addresses the concern of the fixed boundaries causing 
> stripes to be very unbalanced.
> It's exactly like the 2nd, except it takes 2+ adjacent stripes and writes the 
> results out with different boundaries.
> There's a tradeoff here - if we always take 2 adjacent stripes, compactions 
> will be smaller but rebalancing will take ridiculous amount of I/O.
> If we take many stripes we are essentially getting into the 
> epic-major-compaction problem again. Some heuristics will have to be in place.
> In general, if, before stripes are determined, we initially let L0 grow 
> before determining the stripes, we will get better boundaries.
> Also, unless unbalancing is really large we don't need to rebalance really.
> Obviously this scheme (as well as level) is not applicable for all scenarios, 
> e.g. if timestamp is your key it completely falls apart.
> The end result:
> - many small compactions that can be spread out in time.
> - reads still read from a small number of files (one stripe + L0).
> - region splits become marvelously simple (if we could move files between 
> regions, no references would be needed).
> Main advantage over Level (for HBase) is that default store can still open 
> the files and get correct results - there are no range overlap shenanigans.
> It also needs no metadata, although we may record some for convenience.
> It also would appear to not cause as much I/O.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.1#6144)

Reply via email to