[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KUDU-3371?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17837743#comment-17837743
]
ASF subversion and git services commented on KUDU-3371:
-------------------------------------------------------
Commit 61d437fcd3723b93c57b039d1fdbb7ed03fc8ae9 in kudu's branch
refs/heads/master from Yingchun Lai
[ https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=kudu.git;h=61d437fcd ]
KUDU-3371 Unify the 'rdb' directory name
Change-Id: I398bfd4a6a91d95f825362fc55c3b6c7dfe5c724
Reviewed-on: http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/21298
Reviewed-by: Yifan Zhang <chinazhangyi...@163.com>
Reviewed-by: KeDeng <kdeng...@gmail.com>
Tested-by: Yingchun Lai <laiyingc...@apache.org>
> Use RocksDB to store LBM metadata
> ---------------------------------
>
> Key: KUDU-3371
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KUDU-3371
> Project: Kudu
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: fs
> Reporter: Yingchun Lai
> Priority: Major
> Time Spent: 20m
> Remaining Estimate: 0h
>
> h1. Motivation
> The current LBM container use separate .data and .metadata files. The .data
> file store the real user data, we can use hole punching to reduce disk space.
> While the metadata use write protobuf serialized string to a file, in append
> only mode. Each protobuf object is a struct of BlockRecordPB:
>
> {code:java}
> message BlockRecordPB {
> required BlockIdPB block_id = 1; // int64
> required BlockRecordType op_type = 2; // CREATE or DELETE
> required uint64 timestamp_us = 3;
> optional int64 offset = 4; // Required for CREATE.
> optional int64 length = 5; // Required for CREATE.
> } {code}
> That means each object is either type of CREATE or DELETE. To mark a 'block'
> as deleted, there will be 2 objects in the metadata, one is CREATE type and
> the other is DELETE type.
> There are some weak points of current LBM metadata storage mechanism:
> h2. 1. Disk space amplification
> The metadata live blocks rate may be very low, the worst case is there is
> only 1 alive block (suppose it hasn't reach the runtime compact threshold),
> all the other thousands of blocks are dead (i.e. in pair of CREATE-DELETE).
> So the disk space amplification is very serious.
> h2. 2. Long time bootstrap
> In Kudu server bootstrap stage, it have to replay all the metadata files, to
> find out the alive blocks. In the worst case, we may replayed thousands of
> blocks in metadata, but find only a very few blocks are alive.
> It may waste much time in almost all cases, since the Kudu cluster in
> production environment always run without bootstrap with several months, the
> LBM may be very loose.
> h2. 3. Metadada compaction
> To resolve the issues above, there is a metadata compaction mechanism in LBM,
> both at runtime and bootstrap stage.
> The one at runtime will lock the container, and it's synchronous.
> The one in bootstrap stage is synchronous too, and may make the bootstrap
> time longer.
> h1. Optimization by using RocksDB
> h2. Storage design
> * RocksDB instance: one RocksDB instance per data directory.
> * Key: <container_id>.<block_id>
> * Value: the same as before, i.e. the serialized protobuf string, and only
> store for CREATE entries.
> * Put/Delete: put value to rocksdb when create block, delete it from rocksdb
> when delete block
> * Scan: happened only in bootstrap stage to retrieve all blocks
> * DeleteRange: happened only when invalidate a container
> h2. Advantages
> # Disk space amplification: There is still disk space amplification problem.
> But we can tune RocksDB to reach a balanced point, I trust in most cases,
> RocksDB is better than append only file.
> # Bootstrap time: since there are only valid blocks left in rocksdb, so it
> maybe much faster than before.
> # metadata compaction: we can leave it to rocksdb to do this work, of course
> tuning needed.
> h2. test & benchmark
> I'm trying to use RocksDB to store LBM container metadata recently, finished
> most of work now, and did some benchmark. It show that the fs module block
> read/write/delete performance is similar to or little worse than the old
> implemention, the bootstrap time may reduce several times.
> I not sure if it is worth to continue the work, or anybody know if there is
> any discussion on this topic ever.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)
