Skip to content

unordered_write

Maysam Yabandeh edited this page Jul 18, 2019 · 1 revision

Unordered Writes

This document summarizes the design of unordered_write feature, and explains how WritePrepared transactions do still provide ordering in presence of unordered_write=true. The feature offers 40-130% higher write throughput compared to vanilla rocksdb.

Background

When RocksDB executes write requests coming from concurrent write threads, it groups the write threads, assigns order to them, optionally writes them to WAL, and then performs each of the writes to memtables, either serially or concurrently (when allow_concurrent_memtable_write=true). The leader of the write group then waits for the writes to finish, updates the last_visible_seq to the last sequence number in the write group, and then let individual write threads to resume. At this point the next write group could be formed. When the user takes a snapshot of DB, it will be given the last_visible_seq. When the user reads from the snapshot, it only reads values with a sequence number <= the snapshot’s sequence number This simple design offers powerful guarantees:

  • Atomic reads: Either all of a write batch is visible to reads or none of it. This is thanks to the write group advancing the last visible sequence number to the end of the write batch in the group (in contrast to in the middle of a write batch).
  • Read-your-own writes: When a write thread returns to the user, a subsequent read by the same thread will be able to see its own writes. This is because the write thread doesn’t return until the leader of the write group updates the last visible sequence number to be larger or equal to the sequence number that is assigned to the write batch of the write thread.
  • Immutable Snapshots: Since last_visible_seq is not advanced until all the writes in the write group are finished, the reads visible to the snapshot are immutable in the sense that it will not be affected by any in-flight or future writes as they would be performed with a sequence number larger than that of the snapshot.

The downside of this approach is that the entire write group has to wait for the slowest memtable write to finish before i) it can return to the user, or ii) the next write group can be formed. This negatively impacts the rocksdb’s write throughput.

Ordering in WritePrepared Txns

When configured with two_write_queues, non-2pc writes in WritePrepared Txns are performed in two steps:

  1. The write batch is written to the underlying DB with the sequence number prepare_seq via the main write queue. The write group advances last_visible_seq as usual.
  2. The prepare_seq → commit_seq pair is added to a commit table via a 2nd write queue. The commit_seq is a normal sequence number allocated within the write queue. The write group advances a new global variable called last_published_seq to be the last commit_seq in the write group.

The snapshots are fed with last_published_seq (in contrast with last_visible_seq). The reads will return that latest value with a commit_seq <= the snapshot sequence number. The commit_seq is obtained by doing a lookup in the commit table using the sequence number of each value. Note that the order in this approach is specified by commit_seq, which is assigned in the 2nd write thread. The snapshot also depends on the last_published_seq that is updated in the 2nd write thread. Therefore the ordering that core rocksdb provides in the first write group is redundant, and without that the users of TransactionDB would still see ordered writes and enjoy reads from immutable snapshots.

unordered_write: Design

With unordered_write=true, the writes to the main write queue in rocskdb goes through a different path:

  1. Form a write group
  2. The leader in the write group orders the writes, optionally persist them in the WAL, and updates last_visible_seq to the sequence number of the last write batch in the group.
  3. The leader resumes all the individual write threads to perform their writes into memtable.
  4. The next write group is formed while the memtable writes of the previous ones are still in flight.

Note that this approach still gives read-your-own-write properties but not atomic reads nor the immutable snapshot property. However as explained above, TransactionDB configured with WritePrepared transactions and two_write_queues is not affected by that as it uses a 2nd write queue to provide immutable snapshots to its reads.

  • read-your-own-write: When a write thread returns to the user, its write batch is already placed in the memtables with sequence numbers lower than the snapshot sequence number. Therefore the writes a write thread is always visible to its subsequent reads.
  • immutable snapshots: The reads can no longer benefit from immutable snapshots since a snapshot is fed with a sequence number larger than that of upcoming or in-flight writes. Therefore reads from that snapshots will see different views of the db depending on the subset of those in-flight writes that are landed by the time the read is performed.
  • atomic writes: is no longer provided since the last_visible_seq which is fed to snapshot is larger than the sequence numbers of keys in upcoming insertion of the write batch to the memtable. Therefore each prefix of the write batch that is landed on memtables is immediately visible to the readers who read from that snapshot.

If the user can tolerate the relaxed guarantee they can enjoy the higher throughput of undered_write feature. Otherwise they would need to implement their own mechanism to advance the snapshot sequence number to a value that is guaranteed to be larger than any in-flight write. One approach is to use TransactionDB configured with WritePrpared and two_write_queues which would still offer considerably higher throughput than vanilla rocksdb.

unordered_write: Implementation

  • If unordered_write is true, the writes are first redirected to WriteImplWALOnly on the primary write queue where it:
    • groups the write threads
    • if a threshold is reached that requires memtable flush
      • wait on switch_cv_ until pending_memtable_writes_.load() == 0;
      • Flush memtable
    • persist the writes in WAL if it is enabled
    • inc pending_memtable_writes_ with number of write threads that will later write to memtbale
    • updates last_visible_seq to the last sequence number in the write group
  • If the the write thread needs to write to memtable, it calls UnorderedWriteMemtable
    • Write to memtable (in concurrent with other in-flight writes)
    • decrease pending_memtable_writes_
    • If (pending_memtable_writes_ == 0) switch_cv_.notify_all();

WritePrepared Optimizations with unordered_write

WritePrepared transaction by default makes use of a lock table to prevent write-write conflicts. This feature is however extra when TransactionDB is used only to provide ordering for vanilla rocksdb users, and can be disabled with TransactionDBOption::skip_concurrency_control=true. The only consequence of skipping concurrency control is the following anomaly after a restart, which does not seem to be problematic for vanilla rocksdb users:

  • Thread t1 writes Value V1 to Key K and to K’
  • Thread t2 writes Value V2 to Key K
  • The two are are grouped together and written to the WAL with <t1, t2> order
  • The two writes are however committed in opposite order: <Commit(t2), Commit(t1)>
  • The readers might see {K=V2} or {K=V1,K’=V1} depending on their snapshot
  • DB restarts
  • During recovery the commit order is dictated by WAL write order: <Commit(t1) Commit(t2)>
  • The reader see this as the db state: {K=V2,K’=V1} which is different than the DB state before the restart.

Experimental Results

Benchmark:

TEST_TMPDIR=/dev/shm/ ~/db_bench --benchmarks=fillrandom --threads=32 --num=10000000 -max_write_buffer_number=16 --max_background_jobs=64 --batch_size=8 --writes=3000000 -level0_file_num_compaction_trigger=99999 --level0_slowdown_writes_trigger=99999 --level0_stop_writes_trigger=99999 -enable_pipelined_write=false -disable_auto_compactions --transaction_db=true --unordered_write=1 --disable_wal=1

Throughput with unordered_write=true and using WritePrepared transaction

  • WAL: +42%
  • No-WAL: +34%

Throughput with unordered_write=true

  • WAL: +63%
  • NoWAL: +131%

Note: this is an upper-bound on the improvement as it improves only the bottleneck of writing to memtable while the write throughput could also be bottlenecked by compaction speed and IO too.

Future work

  • Optimize WritePrepared
    • WritePrepared adds prepare_seq to a heap. The main reason is to provide correctness for an almost impossible scenario that the commit table flows over prepare_seq before updated with prepare_seq → commit_seq. The contention of the shared heap structure is currently a major bottleneck.
  • Move WritePrepared engine to core rocksdb
    • To enjoy the ordering of WritePrepared, the users currently need to open their db with TransactionDB::Open. It would be more convenient if the feature if enabled with setting an option on the vanilla rocksdb engine.
  • Alternative approaches to ordering
    • The gap between the write throughput of vanilla rocksdb with unordered_write=true and the throughput of WritePrepared with unordered_write is significant. We can explore simpler and more efficient ways of providing immutable snapshots in presence of unordered_write feature.

FAQ

Q: Do we need to use 2PC with WritePrepared Txns?

A: No. All the user need to do is to open the same db with TransactionDB, and use it with the same standard API of vanilla rocksdb. The 2PC’s feature of WritePrepared Txns is irrelevant here and can be ignored.

Q: 2nd write queue in WritePrepared transactions also does ordering between the commits. Why does not it suffer from the same performance problem of the main write queue in vanilla rocksdb?

A: The write to commit table are mostly as fast as updating an element in an array. Therefore it is much less vulnerable to the slow writes problem that is hurting the throughput of ordering in vanilla rocksdb.

Q: Is memtable size accurately enforced in unordered_writes?

A: Not as much as before. From the moment that the threshold is reached until we wait for in-flight writes to finish, the memtable size could increase beyond the threshold. Unordered Writes: The Design

Contents

Clone this wiki locally
You can’t perform that action at this time.