Maxim, Having a cluster-wide lock for a cache does not improve availability of the solution. A user cannot defragment a cache if the cache is involved in a mission-critical operation, so having a lock on such a cache is equivalent to the whole cluster shutdown.
We should decide between either a single offline node or a more complex fully online solution. пт, 4 окт. 2019 г. в 11:55, Maxim Muzafarov <mmu...@apache.org>: > Igniters, > > This thread seems to be endless, but we if some kind of cache group > distributed write lock (exclusive for some of the internal Ignite > process) will be introduced? I think it will help to solve a batch of > problems, like: > > 1. defragmentation of all cache group partitions on the local node > without concurrent updates. > 2. improve data loading with data streamer isolation mode [1]. It > seems we should not allow concurrent updates to cache if we on `fast > data load` step. > 3. recovery from a snapshot without cache stop\start actions > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-11793 > > On Thu, 3 Oct 2019 at 22:50, Sergey Kozlov <skoz...@gridgain.com> wrote: > > > > Hi > > > > I'm not sure that node offline is a best way to do that. > > Cons: > > - different caches may have different defragmentation but we force to > stop > > whole node > > - offline node is a maintenance operation will require to add +1 backup > to > > reduce the risk of data loss > > - baseline auto adjustment? > > - impact to index rebuild? > > - cache configuration changes (or destroy) during node offline > > > > What about other ways without node stop? E.g. make cache group on a node > > offline? Add *defrag <cache_group> *command to control.sh to force start > > rebalance internally in the node with expected impact to performance. > > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 12:08 PM Anton Vinogradov <a...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > Alexey, > > > As for me, it does not matter will it be IEP, umbrella or a single > issue. > > > The most important thing is Assignee :) > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 11:59 AM Alexey Goncharuk < > > > alexey.goncha...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Anton, do you think we should file a single ticket for this or > should we > > > go > > > > with an IEP? As of now, the change does not look big enough for an > IEP > > > for > > > > me. > > > > > > > > чт, 3 окт. 2019 г. в 11:18, Anton Vinogradov <a...@apache.org>: > > > > > > > > > Alexey, > > > > > > > > > > Sounds good to me. > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 10:51 AM Alexey Goncharuk < > > > > > alexey.goncha...@gmail.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, > > > > > > > > > > > > Switching a partition to and from the SHRINKING state will > require > > > > > > intricate synchronizations in order to properly determine the > start > > > > > > position for historical rebalance without PME. > > > > > > > > > > > > I would still go with an offline-node approach, but instead of > > > cleaning > > > > > the > > > > > > persistence, we can do effective defragmentation when the node is > > > > offline > > > > > > because we are sure that there is no concurrent load. After the > > > > > > defragmentation completes, we bring the node back to the cluster > and > > > > > > historical rebalance will kick in automatically. It will still > > > require > > > > > > manual node restarts, but since the data is not removed, there > are no > > > > > > additional risks. Also, this will be an excellent solution for > those > > > > who > > > > > > can afford downtime and execute the defragment command on all > nodes > > > in > > > > > the > > > > > > cluster simultaneously - this will be the fastest way possible. > > > > > > > > > > > > --AG > > > > > > > > > > > > пн, 30 сент. 2019 г. в 09:29, Anton Vinogradov <a...@apache.org>: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alexei, > > > > > > > >> stopping fragmented node and removing partition data, then > > > > starting > > > > > it > > > > > > > again > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's exactly what we're doing to solve the fragmentation > issue. > > > > > > > The problem here is that we have to perform N/B > restart-rebalance > > > > > > > operations (N - cluster size, B - backups count) and it takes > a lot > > > > of > > > > > > time > > > > > > > with risks to lose the data. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 5:49 PM Alexei Scherbakov < > > > > > > > alexey.scherbak...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Probably this should be allowed to do using public API, > actually > > > > this > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > same as manual rebalancing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > пт, 27 сент. 2019 г. в 17:40, Alexei Scherbakov < > > > > > > > > alexey.scherbak...@gmail.com>: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The poor man's solution for the problem would be stopping > > > > > fragmented > > > > > > > node > > > > > > > > > and removing partition data, then starting it again > allowing > > > full > > > > > > state > > > > > > > > > transfer already without deletes. > > > > > > > > > Rinse and repeat for all owners. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anton Vinogradov, would this work for you as workaround ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > чт, 19 сент. 2019 г. в 13:03, Anton Vinogradov < > a...@apache.org > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Alexey, > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> Let's combine your and Ivan's proposals. > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> >> vacuum command, which acquires exclusive table lock, > so no > > > > > > > concurrent > > > > > > > > >> activities on the table are possible. > > > > > > > > >> and > > > > > > > > >> >> Could the problem be solved by stopping a node which > needs > > > to > > > > > be > > > > > > > > >> defragmented, clearing persistence files and restarting > the > > > > node? > > > > > > > > >> >> After rebalancing the node will receive all data back > > > without > > > > > > > > >> fragmentation. > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> How about to have special partition state SHRINKING? > > > > > > > > >> This state should mean that partition unavailable for > reads > > > and > > > > > > > updates > > > > > > > > >> but > > > > > > > > >> should keep it's update-counters and should not be marked > as > > > > lost, > > > > > > > > renting > > > > > > > > >> or evicted. > > > > > > > > >> At this state we able to iterate over the partition and > apply > > > > it's > > > > > > > > entries > > > > > > > > >> to another file in a compact way. > > > > > > > > >> Indices should be updated during the copy-on-shrink > procedure > > > or > > > > > at > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > >> shrink completion. > > > > > > > > >> Once shrank file is ready we should replace the original > > > > partition > > > > > > > file > > > > > > > > >> with it and mark it as MOVING which will start the > historical > > > > > > > rebalance. > > > > > > > > >> Shrinking should be performed during the low activity > periods, > > > > but > > > > > > > even > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > >> case we found that activity was high and historical > rebalance > > > is > > > > > not > > > > > > > > >> suitable we may just remove the file and use regular > rebalance > > > > to > > > > > > > > restore > > > > > > > > >> the partition (this will also lead to shrink). > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> BTW, seems, we able to implement partition shrink in a > cheap > > > > way. > > > > > > > > >> We may just use rebalancing code to apply fat partition's > > > > entries > > > > > to > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > >> new file. > > > > > > > > >> So, 3 stages here: local rebalance, indices update and > global > > > > > > > historical > > > > > > > > >> rebalance. > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 11:43 AM Alexey Goncharuk < > > > > > > > > >> alexey.goncha...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > Anton, > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> The solution which Anton suggested does not look > easy > > > > > > because > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > >> will > > > > > > > > >> > > most likely significantly hurt performance > > > > > > > > >> > > Mostly agree here, but what drop do we expect? What > price > > > do > > > > > we > > > > > > > > ready > > > > > > > > >> to > > > > > > > > >> > > pay? > > > > > > > > >> > > Not sure, but seems some vendors ready to pay, for > > > example, > > > > 5% > > > > > > > drop > > > > > > > > >> for > > > > > > > > >> > > this. > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > 5% may be a big drop for some use-cases, so I think we > > > should > > > > > look > > > > > > > at > > > > > > > > >> how > > > > > > > > >> > to improve performance, not how to make it worse. > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> it is hard to maintain a data structure to choose > "page > > > > > from > > > > > > > > >> free-list > > > > > > > > >> > > with enough space closest to the beginning of the > file". > > > > > > > > >> > > We can just split each free-list bucket to the couple > and > > > > use > > > > > > > first > > > > > > > > >> for > > > > > > > > >> > > pages in the first half of the file and the second > for the > > > > > last. > > > > > > > > >> > > Only two buckets required here since, during the file > > > > shrink, > > > > > > > first > > > > > > > > >> > > bucket's window will be shrank too. > > > > > > > > >> > > Seems, this give us the same price on put, just use > the > > > > first > > > > > > > bucket > > > > > > > > >> in > > > > > > > > >> > > case it's not empty. > > > > > > > > >> > > Remove price (with merge) will be increased, of > course. > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > The compromise solution is to have priority put (to > the > > > > first > > > > > > path > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > >> the > > > > > > > > >> > > file), with keeping removal as is, and schedulable > > > per-page > > > > > > > > migration > > > > > > > > >> for > > > > > > > > >> > > the rest of the data during the low activity period. > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > Free lists are large and slow by themselves, it is > expensive > > > > to > > > > > > > > >> checkpoint > > > > > > > > >> > and read them on start, so as a long-term solution I > would > > > > look > > > > > > into > > > > > > > > >> > removing them. Moreover, not sure if adding yet another > > > > > background > > > > > > > > >> process > > > > > > > > >> > will improve the codebase reliability and simplicity. > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > If we want to go the hard path, I would look at free > page > > > > > tracking > > > > > > > > >> bitmap - > > > > > > > > >> > a special bitmask page, where each page in an adjacent > block > > > > is > > > > > > > marked > > > > > > > > >> as 0 > > > > > > > > >> > if it has free space more than a certain configurable > > > > threshold > > > > > > > (say, > > > > > > > > >> 80%) > > > > > > > > >> > - free, and 1 if less (full). Some vendors have > successfully > > > > > > > > implemented > > > > > > > > >> > this approach, which looks much more promising, but > harder > > > to > > > > > > > > implement. > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > --AG > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > > Alexei Scherbakov > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > Alexei Scherbakov > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Sergey Kozlov > > GridGain Systems > > www.gridgain.com >
