[jira] [Closed] (ARTEMIS-508) Sequential File Improvement + Performance Tests

["clebert suconic (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>]

     [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-508?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]

clebert suconic closed ARTEMIS-508.
-----------------------------------
       Resolution: Fixed
         Assignee: clebert suconic
    Fix Version/s: 1.4.0

> Sequential File Improvement + Performance Tests
> -----------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: ARTEMIS-508
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-508
>             Project: ActiveMQ Artemis
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>            Reporter: Francesco Nigro
>            Assignee: clebert suconic
>              Labels: feature, performance, test
>             Fix For: 1.4.0
>
>
> https://github.com/franz1981/activemq-artemis/tree/artemis-journal-performance/artemis-journal/src/main/java/org/apache/activemq/artemis/core/io/mapped
> I've implemented in the package org.apache.activemq.artemis.core.io.mapped a new memory mapped SequentialFile implementation to support fast write/read operations for OSs that cannot use libaio or need RAM access performances on standard Files.
> The implementation is not thread-safe (it is needed?) and needs more buffer checks (or a complex implementation).  I'm using the Netty's PlatformDependent class to perform bulk copy without safepoint's poll issues.
> The implementation is simple but it's good as a proof of concept to compare it against the others: i' ve added a coordinated-omission performance test to measure the latency of a directWrite + OS jitter.
> https://github.com/franz1981/activemq-artemis/blob/artemis-journal-performance/artemis-journal/src/test/java/org/apache/activemq/artemis/core/io/aio/SequentialFileBench.java
> The write tests show performances typical of memory mapped file: quoting from Peter Lawrey "for burst of up to 10% of the main memory, it can sustain rates of 1 - 3 GB/second written. e.g. A laptop with 8 GB of memory might handle bursts of 800 MB at a rate of 1 GB per second. A server with 64 GB of memory might handle a burst of 6.5 GB at a rate of 3 GB per second".
> I want to improve the quality of the implementation by:
> 1- enforcing the original SequenceFile contract 
> 2- replacing synchronized reads/writes with lock-free versions
> 3- replacing the EventExecutor with a Lock-Free (even wait-free) Array Queue + EventLoop's poller
> 4- addressing all the False-Sharing issues around all the AtomicLong instances used
> 5- reducing the garbage produced for the fast paths to 0
> [6- expose try methods to allow direct flow control]
> [7- replacing the Semaphore based rate limiter with a lock free one]
> That's are all proposals, what do you think about it? 
> Regards



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)