Skip to content
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

Consider using Java >= 21 to allow usage of virtual threads #395

Open
eivanov89 opened this issue Nov 20, 2023 · 2 comments
Open

Consider using Java >= 21 to allow usage of virtual threads #395

eivanov89 opened this issue Nov 20, 2023 · 2 comments

Comments

@eivanov89
Copy link

Hi,

We did a fork of benchbase to get TPC-C for YDB. Here we describe our testing setup and TPC-C implementation with a particular focus on the threading model.

We need to run 15K TPC-C warehouses and even more, which requires >= 150,000 terminals. Currently, you use the model where 1 terminal equals 1 thread, which is not optimal. Even with sleeping threads, it's hard to create more than 3-5K terminals per server. As of Java 21, virtual threads are available, and they are in many ways similar to goroutines. Transitioning to virtual threads involves straightforward code changes here. However, there might be some potential deadlocks depending on the particular JDBC driver and benchmark. For instance, when we added the c3p0 session manager, we encountered a deadlock. It was holding carrier threads waiting for sessions to become available, while session threads were parked for I/O and couldn't get carrier threads to perform I/O.

Is there any chance you would consider switching to Java 21 so that virtual threads become an option?

@bpkroth
Copy link
Collaborator

bpkroth commented Nov 20, 2023

Hi, happy to accept a PR (even partial to get started with) if you have one. Thanks!

@eivanov89
Copy link
Author

Hi Brian, I've created the pull request. The changes are straightforward. Looking forward the review.

eivanov89 added a commit to eivanov89/benchbase that referenced this issue Dec 4, 2023
@bpkroth bpkroth linked a pull request Dec 14, 2023 that will close this issue
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants