Pavel,
IGFS doesn't enforce you to have block in heap. What you suggest can be
achieved with IGFS as follows:
1) Disable caching, so data cache is not used ("PROXY" mode)
2) Implement IgniteFileSystem interface which operates on abstract streams
But the whole idea around mmap sounds like premature optimisation to me. I
conducted a number of experiments with IGFS on large Hadoop workload. Even
with old AI 1.x architecture, where everything was stored onheap, I never
had an issue with GC. The key point is that IGFS operates on large (64Kb)
data blocks, so even with 100Gb full of these blocks you will have
relatively small number of objects and normal GC pauses. Additional memory
copying is not an issue either in most workloads in distributed systems,
because most of the time is spent on IO and internal synchronization anyway.
Do you have specific scenario when you observed long GC pauses with GC or
serious performance degradation with IGFS?
Even if we agree that mmap usage is a critical piece, all we need is to
implement a single IGFS interface.
On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 10:44 PM Pavel Kovalenko <jokse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Vladimir,
>
> The key difference between BLOB storage and IGFS is that BLOB storage will
> have persistent-based architecture with possibility to cache blocks in
> offheap (using mmap, which is more simple, because we delegate it to OS
> level)
> , while IGFS has in-memory based architecture with possibility to persist
> blocks.
> BLOB storage will have possibility to work with small amount of RAM without
> signficant performance drop (Using zero-copy from socket to disk) and in
> opposite case it can keep all available blocks in offheap if it's possible
> (Using mmap again).
> IGFS perform a lot of operations with blocks in on-heap which leads to
> unnecessary data copies, long GC pauses and performance drop. All IGFS
> architecture tightly bound with in-memory features, so it's too hard to
> rewrite IGFS in persistent-based manner. But, cool IGFS features such as
> intelligent affinity routing, chunk colocation will be reused in BLOB
> storage.
> Does it make sense?
>
>
>
> 2018-07-05 19:01 GMT+03:00 Vladimir Ozerov <voze...@gridgain.com>:
>
> > Pavel,
> > Design you described is almost precisely what IGFS does. It has a cache
> for
> > metadata, split binary data in chunks with intelligent affinity routing.
> In
> > addition we have map-reduce feature on top of it and integration with
> > underlying file system with optional caching. Data can be accessed in
> > blocks or streams. IGFS is not in active development, but it is not
> > outdated either.
> > Can you shortly explain why do you think that we need to drop IGFS and
> > re-implement almost the same thing from scratch?
> >
> > Dima, Sergey,
> > Yes, we need BLOB support you described. Unfortunately it is not that
> easy
> > to implement from SQL perspective. To support it we would need either
> MVCC
> > (with it's own drawbacks) or read-locks for SELECT.
> >
> > Vladimir.
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 10:40 AM Sergey Kozlov <skoz...@gridgain.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Dmitriy
> > >
> > > You're right that that large objects storing should be optmized.
> > >
> > > Let's assume the large object means the regular object having large
> > fields
> > > and such fileds won't be used for comparison thus we can do not restore
> > the
> > > BLOB fields in offheap page memory e.g for sql queries if select
> doesn't
> > > include them explicitly. It can reduce page eviction and speed up the
> > > perfomance and make less chance to get OOM.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 1:06 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> dsetrak...@apache.org
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > To be honest, I am not sure if we need to kick off another file
> system
> > > > storage discussion in Ignite. It sounds like a huge effort and likely
> > > will
> > > > not be productive.
> > > >
> > > > However, I think an ability to store large objects will make sense.
> For
> > > > example, how do I store a 10GB blob in Ignite cache? Most likely we
> > have
> > > to
> > > > have a separate memory or disk space, allocated for blobs only. We
> also
> > > > need to be able to efficiently transfer a 10GB Blob object over the
> > > network
> > > > and store it off-heap right away, without bringing it into main heap
> > > memory
> > > > (otherwise we would run out of memory).
> > > >
> > > > I suggest that we create an IEP about this use case alone and leave
> the
> > > > file system for the future discussions.
> > > >
> > > > D.
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 6:50 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> voze...@gridgain.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Pavel,
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you. I'll wait for feature comparison and concrete use cases,
> > > > because
> > > > > for me this feature still sounds too abstract to judge whether
> > product
> > > > > would benefit from it.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 3:15 PM Pavel Kovalenko <jokse...@gmail.com
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think we have a little miscommunication here. Of course, I
> meant
> > > > > > supporting large entries / chunks of binary data. Internally it
> > will
> > > be
> > > > > > BLOB storage, which can be accessed through various interfaces.
> > > > > > "File" is just an abstraction for an end user for convenience, a
> > > > wrapper
> > > > > > layer to have user-friendly API to directly store BLOBs. We
> > shouldn't
> > > > > > support full file protocol support with file system capabilities.
> > It
> > > > can
> > > > > be
> > > > > > added later, but now it's absolutely unnecessary and introduces
> > extra
> > > > > > complexity.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We can implement our BLOB storage step by step. The first thing
> is
> > > > > > core functionality and support to save large parts of binary
> > objects
> > > to
> > > > > it.
> > > > > > "File" layer, Web layer, etc. can be added later.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The initial IGFS design doesn't have good capabilities to have a
> > > > > > persistence layer. I think we shouldn't do any changes to it,
> this
> > > > > project
> > > > > > as for me is almost outdated. We will drop IGFS after
> implementing
> > > File
> > > > > > System layer over our BLOB storage.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Vladimir,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I will prepare a comparison with other existing distributed file
> > > > storages
> > > > > > and file systems in a few days.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > About usage data grid, I never said, that we need transactions,
> > sync
> > > > > backup
> > > > > > and etc. We need just a few core things - Atomic cache with
> > > > persistence,
> > > > > > Discovery, Baseline, Affinity, and Communication.
> > > > > > Other things we can implement by ourselves. So this feature can
> > > develop
> > > > > > independently of other non-core features.
> > > > > > For me Ignite way is providing to our users a fast and convenient
> > way
> > > > to
> > > > > > solve their problems with good performance and durability. We
> have
> > > the
> > > > > > problem with storing large data, we should solve it.
> > > > > > About other things see my message to Dmitriy above.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > вс, 1 июл. 2018 г. в 9:48, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> > dsetrak...@apache.org
> > > >:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I have actually misunderstood the use case. To be honest, I
> > thought
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > you were talking about the support of large values in Ignite
> > > caches,
> > > > > e.g.
> > > > > > > objects that are several megabytes in cache.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If we are tackling the distributed file system, then in my
> view,
> > we
> > > > > > should
> > > > > > > be talking about IGFS and adding persistence support to IGFS
> > (which
> > > > is
> > > > > > > based on HDFS API). It is not clear to me that you are talking
> > > about
> > > > > > IGFS.
> > > > > > > Can you confirm?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > D.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 10:59 AM, Pavel Kovalenko <
> > > > jokse...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yes, I have approximate design in my mind. The main idea is
> > that
> > > we
> > > > > > > already
> > > > > > > > have distributed cache for files metadata (our Atomic cache),
> > the
> > > > > data
> > > > > > > flow
> > > > > > > > and distribution will be controlled by our AffinityFunction
> and
> > > > > > Baseline.
> > > > > > > > We're already have discovery and communication to make such
> > local
> > > > > files
> > > > > > > > storages to be synced. The files data will be separated to
> > large
> > > > > blocks
> > > > > > > > (64-128Mb) (which looks very similar to our WAL). Each block
> > can
> > > > > > contain
> > > > > > > > one or more file chunks. The tablespace (segment ids, offsets
> > and
> > > > > etc.)
> > > > > > > > will be stored to our regular page memory. This is key ideas
> to
> > > > > > implement
> > > > > > > > first version of such storage. We already have similiar
> > > components
> > > > in
> > > > > > our
> > > > > > > > persistence, so this experience can be reused to develop such
> > > > > storage.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Denis,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Nothing significant should be changed at our memory level. It
> > > will
> > > > be
> > > > > > > > separate, pluggable component over cache. Most of the
> functions
> > > > which
> > > > > > > give
> > > > > > > > performance boost can be delegated to OS level (Memory mapped
> > > > files,
> > > > > > DMA,
> > > > > > > > Direct write from Socket to disk and vice versa). Ignite and
> > File
> > > > > > Storage
> > > > > > > > can develop independetly of each other.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Alexey Stelmak, which has a great experience with developing
> > such
> > > > > > systems
> > > > > > > > can provide more low level information about how it should
> > look.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > сб, 30 июн. 2018 г. в 19:40, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> > > > > dsetrak...@apache.org
> > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Pavel, it definitely makes sense. Do you have a design in
> > mind?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > D.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jun 30, 2018, 07:24 Pavel Kovalenko <
> > > jokse...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I would like to start a discussion about designing a new
> > > > feature
> > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > think it's time to start making steps towards it.
> > > > > > > > > > I noticed, that some of our users have tried to store
> large
> > > > > > > homogenous
> > > > > > > > > > entries (> 1, 10, 100 Mb/Gb/Tb) to our caches, but
> without
> > > big
> > > > > > > success.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > IGFS project has the possibility to do it, but as for me
> it
> > > has
> > > > > one
> > > > > > > big
> > > > > > > > > > disadvantage - it's in-memory only, so users have a
> strict
> > > size
> > > > > > limit
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > their data and have data loss problem.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Our durable memory has a possibility to persist a data
> that
> > > > > doesn't
> > > > > > > fit
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > RAM to disk, but page structure of it is not supposed to
> > > store
> > > > > > large
> > > > > > > > > pieces
> > > > > > > > > > of data.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > There are a lot of projects of distributed file systems
> > like
> > > > > HDFS,
> > > > > > > > > > GlusterFS, etc. But all of them concentrate to implement
> > > > > high-grade
> > > > > > > > file
> > > > > > > > > > protocol, rather than user-friendly API which leads to
> high
> > > > entry
> > > > > > > > > threshold
> > > > > > > > > > to start implementing something over it.
> > > > > > > > > > We shouldn't go in this way. Our main goal should be
> > > providing
> > > > to
> > > > > > > user
> > > > > > > > > easy
> > > > > > > > > > and fast way to use file storage and processing here and
> > now.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > If take HDFS as closest possible by functionality
> project,
> > we
> > > > > have
> > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > big
> > > > > > > > > > advantage against it. We can use our caches as files
> > metadata
> > > > > > storage
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > have the infinite possibility to scale it, while HDFS is
> > > > bounded
> > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > Namenode capacity and has big problems with keeping a
> large
> > > > > number
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > files
> > > > > > > > > > in the system.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > We achieved very good experience with persistence when we
> > > > > developed
> > > > > > > our
> > > > > > > > > > durable memory, and we can couple together it and
> > experience
> > > > with
> > > > > > > > > services,
> > > > > > > > > > binary protocol, I/O and start to design a new IEP.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Use cases and features of the project:
> > > > > > > > > > 1) Storing XML, JSON, BLOB, CLOB, images, videos, text,
> etc
> > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > > overhead and data loss possibility.
> > > > > > > > > > 2) Easy, pluggable, fast and distributed file processing,
> > > > > > > > transformation
> > > > > > > > > > and analysis. (E.g. ImageMagick processor for images
> > > > > > transformation,
> > > > > > > > > > LuceneIndex for texts, whatever, it's bounded only by
> your
> > > > > > > > imagination).
> > > > > > > > > > 3) Scalability out of the box.
> > > > > > > > > > 4) User-friendly API and minimal steps to start using
> this
> > > > > storage
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > production.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I repeated again, this project is not supposed to be a
> > > > high-grade
> > > > > > > > > > distributed file system with full file protocol support.
> > > > > > > > > > This project should primarily focus on target users,
> which
> > > > would
> > > > > > like
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > use it without complex preparation.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > As for example, a user can deploy Ignite with such
> storage
> > > and
> > > > > > > > web-server
> > > > > > > > > > with REST API as Ignite service and get scalable,
> > performant
> > > > > image
> > > > > > > > server
> > > > > > > > > > out of the box which can be accessed using any
> programming
> > > > > > language.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > As a far target goal, we should focus on storing and
> > > > processing a
> > > > > > > very
> > > > > > > > > > large amount of the data like movies, streaming, which is
> > the
> > > > big
> > > > > > > trend
> > > > > > > > > > today.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I would like to say special thanks to our community
> members
> > > > > Alexey
> > > > > > > > > Stelmak
> > > > > > > > > > and Dmitriy Govorukhin which significantly helped me to
> put
> > > > > > together
> > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > pieces of that puzzle.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > So, I want to hear your opinions about this proposal.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Sergey Kozlov
> > > GridGain Systems
> > > www.gridgain.com
> > >
> >
>
