Tag:
Branch:
Tree:
198e5d8ee9
main
oxigraph-8.1.1
oxigraph-8.3.2
oxigraph-main
${ noResults }
5 Commits (198e5d8ee933e0139345eee3d3af068b198fc4bf)
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
Gang Liao
|
275cd80cdb |
Add a blob-specific cache priority (#10461)
Summary: RocksDB's `Cache` abstraction currently supports two priority levels for items: high (used for frequently accessed/highly valuable SST metablocks like index/filter blocks) and low (used for SST data blocks). Blobs are typically lower-value targets for caching than data blocks, since 1) with BlobDB, data blocks containing blob references conceptually form an index structure which has to be consulted before we can read the blob value, and 2) cached blobs represent only a single key-value, while cached data blocks generally contain multiple KVs. Since we would like to make it possible to use the same backing cache for the block cache and the blob cache, it would make sense to add a new, lower-than-low cache priority level (bottom level) for blobs so data blocks are prioritized over them. This task is a part of https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10156 Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10461 Reviewed By: siying Differential Revision: D38672823 Pulled By: ltamasi fbshipit-source-id: 90cf7362036563d79891f47be2cc24b827482743 |
2 years ago |
|
Bo Wang
|
87b82f28a1 |
Split cache to minimize internal fragmentation (#10287)
Summary: ### **Summary:** To minimize the internal fragmentation caused by the variable size of the compressed blocks, the original block is split according to the jemalloc bin size in `Insert()` and then merged back in `Lookup()`. Based on the analysis of the results of the following tests, from the overall internal fragmentation perspective, this PR does mitigate the internal fragmentation issue. _Do more myshadow tests with the latest commit. I finished several myshadow AB Testing and the results are promising. For the config of 4GB primary cache and 3GB secondary cache, Jemalloc resident stats shows consistently ~0.15GB memory saving; the allocated and active stats show similar memory savings. The CPU usage is almost the same before and after this PR._ To evaluate the issue of memory fragmentations and the benefits of this PR, I conducted two sets of local tests as follows. **T1** Keys: 16 bytes each (+ 0 bytes user-defined timestamp) Values: 100 bytes each (50 bytes after compression) Entries: 90000000 RawSize: 9956.4 MB (estimated) FileSize: 5664.8 MB (estimated) | Test Name | Primary Cache Size (MB) | Compressed Secondary Cache Size (MB) | | - | - | - | | T1_3 | 4000 | 4000 | | T1_4 | 2000 | 3000 | Populate the DB: ./db_bench --benchmarks=fillrandom --num=90000000 -db=/mem_fragmentation/db_bench_1 Overwrite it to a stable state: ./db_bench --benchmarks=overwrite --num=90000000 -use_existing_db -db=/mem_fragmentation/db_bench_1 Run read tests with differnt cache setting: T1_3: MALLOC_CONF="prof:true,prof_stats:true" ../rocksdb/db_bench --benchmarks=seekrandom --threads=16 --num=90000000 -use_existing_db --benchmark_write_rate_limit=52000000 -use_direct_reads --cache_size=4000000000 -compressed_secondary_cache_size=4000000000 -use_compressed_secondary_cache -db=/mem_fragmentation/db_bench_1 --print_malloc_stats=true > ~/temp/mem_frag/20220710/jemalloc_stats_json_T1_3_20220710 -duration=1800 & T1_4: MALLOC_CONF="prof:true,prof_stats:true" ../rocksdb/db_bench --benchmarks=seekrandom --threads=16 --num=90000000 -use_existing_db --benchmark_write_rate_limit=52000000 -use_direct_reads --cache_size=2000000000 -compressed_secondary_cache_size=3000000000 -use_compressed_secondary_cache -db=/mem_fragmentation/db_bench_1 --print_malloc_stats=true > ~/temp/mem_frag/20220710/jemalloc_stats_json_T1_4_20220710 -duration=1800 & For T1_3 and T1_4, I also conducted the tests before and after this PR. The following table show the important jemalloc stats. | Test Name | T1_3 | T1_3 after mem defrag | T1_4 | T1_4 after mem defrag | | - | - | - | - | - | | allocated (MB) | 8728 | 8076 | 5518 | 5043 | | available (MB) | 8753 | 8092 | 5536 | 5051 | | external fragmentation rate | 0.003 | 0.002 | 0.003 | 0.0016 | | resident (MB) | 8956 | 8365 | 5655 | 5235 | **T2** Keys: 32 bytes each (+ 0 bytes user-defined timestamp) Values: 256 bytes each (128 bytes after compression) Entries: 40000000 RawSize: 10986.3 MB (estimated) FileSize: 6103.5 MB (estimated) | Test Name | Primary Cache Size (MB) | Compressed Secondary Cache Size (MB) | | - | - | - | | T2_3 | 4000 | 4000 | | T2_4 | 2000 | 3000 | Create DB (10GB): ./db_bench -benchmarks=fillrandom -use_direct_reads=true -num=40000000 -key_size=32 -value_size=256 -db=/mem_fragmentation/db_bench_2 Overwrite it to a stable state: ./db_bench --benchmarks=overwrite --num=40000000 -use_existing_db -key_size=32 -value_size=256 -db=/mem_fragmentation/db_bench_2 Run read tests with differnt cache setting: T2_3: MALLOC_CONF="prof:true,prof_stats:true" ./db_bench --benchmarks="mixgraph" -use_direct_io_for_flush_and_compaction=true -use_direct_reads=true -cache_size=4000000000 -compressed_secondary_cache_size=4000000000 -use_compressed_secondary_cache -keyrange_dist_a=14.18 -keyrange_dist_b=-2.917 -keyrange_dist_c=0.0164 -keyrange_dist_d=-0.08082 -keyrange_num=30 -value_k=0.2615 -value_sigma=25.45 -iter_k=2.517 -iter_sigma=14.236 -mix_get_ratio=0.85 -mix_put_ratio=0.14 -mix_seek_ratio=0.01 -sine_mix_rate_interval_milliseconds=5000 -sine_a=1000 -sine_b=0.000073 -sine_d=400000 -reads=80000000 -num=40000000 -key_size=32 -value_size=256 -use_existing_db=true -db=/mem_fragmentation/db_bench_2 --print_malloc_stats=true > ~/temp/mem_frag/jemalloc_stats_T2_3 -duration=1800 & T2_4: MALLOC_CONF="prof:true,prof_stats:true" ./db_bench --benchmarks="mixgraph" -use_direct_io_for_flush_and_compaction=true -use_direct_reads=true -cache_size=2000000000 -compressed_secondary_cache_size=3000000000 -use_compressed_secondary_cache -keyrange_dist_a=14.18 -keyrange_dist_b=-2.917 -keyrange_dist_c=0.0164 -keyrange_dist_d=-0.08082 -keyrange_num=30 -value_k=0.2615 -value_sigma=25.45 -iter_k=2.517 -iter_sigma=14.236 -mix_get_ratio=0.85 -mix_put_ratio=0.14 -mix_seek_ratio=0.01 -sine_mix_rate_interval_milliseconds=5000 -sine_a=1000 -sine_b=0.000073 -sine_d=400000 -reads=80000000 -num=40000000 -key_size=32 -value_size=256 -use_existing_db=true -db=/mem_fragmentation/db_bench_2 --print_malloc_stats=true > ~/temp/mem_frag/jemalloc_stats_T2_4 -duration=1800 & For T2_3 and T2_4, I also conducted the tests before and after this PR. The following table show the important jemalloc stats. | Test Name | T2_3 | T2_3 after mem defrag | T2_4 | T2_4 after mem defrag | | - | - | - | - | - | | allocated (MB) | 8425 | 8093 | 5426 | 5149 | | available (MB) | 8489 | 8138 | 5435 | 5158 | | external fragmentation rate | 0.008 | 0.0055 | 0.0017 | 0.0017 | | resident (MB) | 8676 | 8392 | 5541 | 5321 | Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10287 Test Plan: Unit tests. Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D37743362 Pulled By: gitbw95 fbshipit-source-id: 0010c5af08addeacc5ebbc4ffe5be882fb1d38ad |
2 years ago |
|
Peter Dillinger
|
65036e4217 |
Revert "Add a blob-specific cache priority (#10309)" (#10434)
Summary:
This reverts commit
|
2 years ago |
|
Gang Liao
|
8d178090be |
Add a blob-specific cache priority (#10309)
Summary: RocksDB's `Cache` abstraction currently supports two priority levels for items: high (used for frequently accessed/highly valuable SST metablocks like index/filter blocks) and low (used for SST data blocks). Blobs are typically lower-value targets for caching than data blocks, since 1) with BlobDB, data blocks containing blob references conceptually form an index structure which has to be consulted before we can read the blob value, and 2) cached blobs represent only a single key-value, while cached data blocks generally contain multiple KVs. Since we would like to make it possible to use the same backing cache for the block cache and the blob cache, it would make sense to add a new, lower-than-low cache priority level (bottom level) for blobs so data blocks are prioritized over them. This task is a part of https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/10156 Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10309 Reviewed By: ltamasi Differential Revision: D38211655 Pulled By: gangliao fbshipit-source-id: 65ef33337db4d85277cc6f9782d67c421ad71dd5 |
2 years ago |
|
gitbw95
|
f241d082b6 |
Prevent double caching in the compressed secondary cache (#9747)
Summary: ### **Summary:** When both LRU Cache and CompressedSecondaryCache are configured together, there possibly are some data blocks double cached. **Changes include:** 1. Update IS_PROMOTED to IS_IN_SECONDARY_CACHE to prevent confusions. 2. This PR updates SecondaryCacheResultHandle and use IsErasedFromSecondaryCache to determine whether the handle is erased in the secondary cache. Then, the caller can determine whether to SetIsInSecondaryCache(). 3. Rename LRUSecondaryCache to CompressedSecondaryCache. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/9747 Test Plan: **Test Scripts:** 1. Populate a DB. The on disk footprint is 482 MB. The data is set to be 50% compressible, so the total decompressed size is expected to be 964 MB. ./db_bench --benchmarks=fillrandom --num=10000000 -db=/db_bench_1 2. overwrite it to a stable state: ./db_bench --benchmarks=overwrite,stats --num=10000000 -use_existing_db -duration=10 --benchmark_write_rate_limit=2000000 -db=/db_bench_1 4. Run read tests with diffeernt cache setting: T1: ./db_bench --benchmarks=seekrandom,stats --threads=16 --num=10000000 -use_existing_db -duration=120 --benchmark_write_rate_limit=52000000 -use_direct_reads --cache_size=520000000 --statistics -db=/db_bench_1 T2: ./db_bench --benchmarks=seekrandom,stats --threads=16 --num=10000000 -use_existing_db -duration=120 --benchmark_write_rate_limit=52000000 -use_direct_reads --cache_size=320000000 -compressed_secondary_cache_size=400000000 --statistics -use_compressed_secondary_cache -db=/db_bench_1 T3: ./db_bench --benchmarks=seekrandom,stats --threads=16 --num=10000000 -use_existing_db -duration=120 --benchmark_write_rate_limit=52000000 -use_direct_reads --cache_size=520000000 -compressed_secondary_cache_size=400000000 --statistics -use_compressed_secondary_cache -db=/db_bench_1 T4: ./db_bench --benchmarks=seekrandom,stats --threads=16 --num=10000000 -use_existing_db -duration=120 --benchmark_write_rate_limit=52000000 -use_direct_reads --cache_size=20000000 -compressed_secondary_cache_size=500000000 --statistics -use_compressed_secondary_cache -db=/db_bench_1 **Before this PR** | Cache Size | Compressed Secondary Cache Size | Cache Hit Rate | |------------|-------------------------------------|----------------| |520 MB | 0 MB | 85.5% | |320 MB | 400 MB | 96.2% | |520 MB | 400 MB | 98.3% | |20 MB | 500 MB | 98.8% | **Before this PR** | Cache Size | Compressed Secondary Cache Size | Cache Hit Rate | |------------|-------------------------------------|----------------| |520 MB | 0 MB | 85.5% | |320 MB | 400 MB | 99.9% | |520 MB | 400 MB | 99.9% | |20 MB | 500 MB | 99.2% | Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D35117499 Pulled By: gitbw95 fbshipit-source-id: ea2657749fc13efebe91a8a1b56bc61d6a224a12 |
3 years ago |
|
Bo Wang
|
f706a9c199 |
Add a secondary cache implementation based on LRUCache 1 (#9518)
Summary: **Summary:** RocksDB uses a block cache to reduce IO and make queries more efficient. The block cache is based on the LRU algorithm (LRUCache) and keeps objects containing uncompressed data, such as Block, ParsedFullFilterBlock etc. It allows the user to configure a second level cache (rocksdb::SecondaryCache) to extend the primary block cache by holding items evicted from it. Some of the major RocksDB users, like MyRocks, use direct IO and would like to use a primary block cache for uncompressed data and a secondary cache for compressed data. The latter allows us to mitigate the loss of the Linux page cache due to direct IO. This PR includes a concrete implementation of rocksdb::SecondaryCache that integrates with compression libraries such as LZ4 and implements an LRU cache to hold compressed blocks. Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/9518 Test Plan: In this PR, the lru_secondary_cache_test.cc includes the following tests: 1. The unit tests for the secondary cache with either compression or no compression, such as basic tests, fails tests. 2. The integration tests with both primary cache and this secondary cache . **Follow Up:** 1. Statistics (e.g. compression ratio) will be added in another PR. 2. Once this implementation is ready, I will do some shadow testing and benchmarking with UDB to measure the impact. Reviewed By: anand1976 Differential Revision: D34430930 Pulled By: gitbw95 fbshipit-source-id: 218d78b672a2f914856d8a90ff32f2f5b5043ded |
3 years ago |