Tag:
Branch:
Tree:
f79b3d19a7
main
oxigraph-8.1.1
oxigraph-8.3.2
oxigraph-main
${ noResults }
6 Commits (f79b3d19a77f649536da6321f40e1c0d269bde48)
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
Bo Wang
|
d490bfcdb6 |
Avoid recompressing cold block in CompressedSecondaryCache (#10527)
Summary:
**Summary:**
When a block is firstly `Lookup` from the secondary cache, we just insert a dummy block in the primary cache (charging the actual size of the block) and don’t erase the block from the secondary cache. A standalone handle is returned from `Lookup`. Only if the block is hit again, we erase it from the secondary cache and add it into the primary cache.
When a block is firstly evicted from the primary cache to the secondary cache, we just insert a dummy block (size 0) in the secondary cache. When the block is evicted again, it is treated as a hot block and is inserted into the secondary cache.
**Implementation Details**
Add a new state of LRUHandle: The handle is never inserted into the LRUCache (both hash table and LRU list) and it doesn't experience the above three states. The entry can be freed when refs becomes 0. (refs >= 1 && in_cache == false && IS_STANDALONE == true)
The behaviors of `LRUCacheShard::Lookup()` are updated if the secondary_cache is CompressedSecondaryCache:
1. If a handle is found in primary cache:
1.1. If the handle's value is not nullptr, it is returned immediately.
1.2. If the handle's value is nullptr, this means the handle is a dummy one. For a dummy handle, if it was retrieved from secondary cache, it may still exist in secondary cache.
- 1.2.1. If no valid handle can be `Lookup` from secondary cache, return nullptr.
- 1.2.2. If the handle from secondary cache is valid, erase it from the secondary cache and add it into the primary cache.
2. If a handle is not found in primary cache:
2.1. If no valid handle can be `Lookup` from secondary cache, return nullptr.
2.2. If the handle from secondary cache is valid, insert a dummy block in the primary cache (charging the actual size of the block) and return a standalone handle.
The behaviors of `LRUCacheShard::Promote()` are updated as follows:
1. If `e->sec_handle` has value, one of the following steps can happen:
1.1. Insert a dummy handle and return a standalone handle to caller when `secondary_cache_` is `CompressedSecondaryCache` and e is a standalone handle.
1.2. Insert the item into the primary cache and return the handle to caller.
1.3. Exception handling.
3. If `e->sec_handle` has no value, mark the item as not in cache and charge the cache as its only metadata that'll shortly be released.
The behavior of `CompressedSecondaryCache::Insert()` is updated:
1. If a block is evicted from the primary cache for the first time, a dummy item is inserted.
4. If a dummy item is found for a block, the block is inserted into the secondary cache.
The behavior of `CompressedSecondaryCache:::Lookup()` is updated:
1. If a handle is not found or it is a dummy item, a nullptr is returned.
2. If `erase_handle` is true, the handle is erased.
The behaviors of `LRUCacheShard::Release()` are adjusted for the standalone handles.
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/10527
Test Plan:
1. stress tests.
5. unit tests.
6. CPU profiling for db_bench.
Reviewed By: siying
Differential Revision: D38747613
Pulled By: gitbw95
fbshipit-source-id: 74a1eba7e1957c9affb2bd2ae3e0194584fa6eca
|
2 years ago |
|
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 |
2 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 |