-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 141
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[#642]feat(server): better default options for shuffle server #662
Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #662 +/- ##
============================================
+ Coverage 60.67% 63.04% +2.36%
- Complexity 1802 1807 +5
============================================
Files 216 202 -14
Lines 12458 10523 -1935
Branches 1052 1054 +2
============================================
- Hits 7559 6634 -925
+ Misses 4494 3543 -951
+ Partials 405 346 -59
📣 We’re building smart automated test selection to slash your CI/CD build times. Learn more |
Our memory is equal to |
If I understand the shuffle server code correctly, read buffer and buffer capacity have some overlapping region, So it's possible The current default value may a bit larger consider the meta memory required for shuffle server. |
They shouldn't have overlap. |
IIUC, the buffer caches data in memory, when reading with memory shuffle, the data size is calculated both for buffer and read buffer, these two regions should be considered overlapped region? |
From the point of view of production environment, the reserved system memory should be the half of xmx. If not, the full gc will occur when the server meets the high pressure. |
Ouch, that hurts.... |
No, they will copy memory. They shouldn't overlap. |
Oh, I saw the code... This seems inefficient, let's reconsider this when doing off-heap memory management. |
@zuston do you have any suggestion ratio for buffer and read buffer then. |
For us, read buffer size is the half of buffer capacity size. But from the dashboard, the read buffer size could be set to smaller. |
I just changed the default value of buffer capacity and read capacity ratio to 0.6 and 0.2, WDYT? @zuston @jerqi |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM
…pache#662) ### What changes were proposed in this pull request? 1. `rss.server.buffer.capacity` uses JVM heap size * ratio(0.6) by default 2. `rss.server.read.buffer.capacity` uses JVM heap size * ratio(0.2) by default 3. `rss.server.disk.capacity` uses disk space * ratio(0.9) by default ### Why are the changes needed? Fix: apache#642 ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? Yes. Three new configurations are introduced, users can specify ratio values for buffer, read buffer and disk capacity ### How was this patch tested? New UTs.
…pache#662) ### What changes were proposed in this pull request? 1. `rss.server.buffer.capacity` uses JVM heap size * ratio(0.6) by default 2. `rss.server.read.buffer.capacity` uses JVM heap size * ratio(0.2) by default 3. `rss.server.disk.capacity` uses disk space * ratio(0.9) by default ### Why are the changes needed? Fix: apache#642 ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? Yes. Three new configurations are introduced, users can specify ratio values for buffer, read buffer and disk capacity ### How was this patch tested? New UTs.
What changes were proposed in this pull request?
rss.server.buffer.capacity
uses JVM heap size * ratio(0.6) by defaultrss.server.read.buffer.capacity
uses JVM heap size * ratio(0.2) by defaultrss.server.disk.capacity
uses disk space * ratio(0.9) by defaultWhy are the changes needed?
Fix: #642
Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?
Yes. Three new configurations are introduced, users can specify ratio values
for buffer, read buffer and disk capacity
How was this patch tested?
New UTs.