[tarantool-patches] [PATCH] Relay logs from wal thread
vdavydov.dev at gmail.com
Tue Jan 29 11:53:18 MSK 2019
On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 05:18:36PM +0300, Georgy Kirichenko wrote:
> Use wal thread to relay rows. Relay writer and reader fibers live
> in a wal thread. Writer fiber uses wal memory to send rows to the
> peer when it possible or spawns cords to recover rows from a file.
> Wal writer stores rows into two memory buffers swapping by buffer
> threshold. Memory buffers are splitted into chunks with the
> same server id issued by chunk threshold. In order to search
> position in wal memory all chunks indexed by wal_mem_index
> array. Each wal_mem_index contains corresponding replica_id and
> vclock just before first row in the chunk as well as chunk buffer
> number, position and size of the chunk in memory.
> Closes: #3794
It's too early to comment on the code. Here are some general issues that
I think need to be addressed first:
- Moving relay code to WAL looks ugly as it turns the code into a messy
bundle. Let's try to hide relay behind an interface. Currently, we
only need one method - write() - but in future we might need more,
for instance prepare() or commit(). May be, we could reuse journal
struct for this?
- Memory index looks confusing to me. Why would we need it at all?
AFAIU it is only used to quickly position relay after switching to
memory buffer, but it's not a big deal to linearly scan the buffer
instead when that happens - it's a rare event and scanning memory
should be fast enough. At least, we should start with it, because
that would be clear and simple, and build any indexing later in
separate patches provided we realize that we really need it, which I
- We shouldn't stop/start relay thread when switching to/from memory
source. Instead on SUBSCRIBE we should always start a relay thread,
as we do now, and implement some machinery to suspend/resume it and
switch to memory/disk when it falls in/out the memory buffer. All
that machinery should live in relay.cc.
- When in sync mode, WAL should write directly to the relay socket,
without using any intermediate buffer. Buffer should only be used if
the socket is blocked or the relay is running in asynchronous mode.
There's no need in extra memory copying otherwise.
- Maintaining a single memory buffer in WAL would complicate relay sync
interface implementation. May be, we could use a separate buffer per
each relay? That would be less efficient, obviously, because it would
mean extra memory copying and usage, but that would simplify the code
a great deal. Besides, we would need to use the buffers only for
async relays - once a relay is switched to sync mode, we could write
to its socket directly. So I think we should at least consider this
- You removed the code that tried to advance GC consumers as rarely as
possible, namely only when a WAL file is closed. I'd try to save it
somehow, because without it every ACK would result in GC going to WAL
if relay is running in async mode (because only WAL knows about WAL
files; for others it's just a continuous stream). When a relay is
running in sync mode, advancing GC on each ACK seems to be OK,
because WAL won't be invoked then (as we never remove WAL files
created after the last checkpoint).
- I really don't like code duplication. I think we should reuse the
code used for sending rows and receiving ACKs between sync and sync
modes. Hiding sync relay implementation behind an interface would
allow us to do that.
- I don't see how this patch depends on #1025 (sending rows in
batches). Let's implement relaying from memory first and do #1025
later, when we see the full picture.
More information about the Tarantool-patches