You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to issues-all@impala.apache.org by "Michael Smith (Jira)" <ji...@apache.org> on 2022/11/04 17:35:00 UTC
[jira] [Assigned] (IMPALA-11704) Remote Ozone scans are slow even after data cache warmup
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IMPALA-11704?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]
Michael Smith reassigned IMPALA-11704:
--------------------------------------
Assignee: Michael Smith
> Remote Ozone scans are slow even after data cache warmup
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: IMPALA-11704
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IMPALA-11704
> Project: IMPALA
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Backend
> Affects Versions: Impala 4.1.1
> Reporter: Michael Smith
> Assignee: Michael Smith
> Priority: Major
>
> From [~drorke]:
> {quote}
> Running some basic performance sanity tests ... with Impala TPC-DS queries against Ozone vs HDFS. Impala appears to be using it's data cache for both Ozone and HDFS remote reads, but in the case of Ozone reads I'm still seeing long scan times and high I/O wait times even after cache warmup. Excerpts below from profiles of q90. Note in both cases the Impala profiles show 100% cache hit rates but for some reason the scan IO wait times are still much longer for the Ozone scans.
> {noformat}
> HDFS:
> - TotalTime: 1s924ms
> - ScannerIoWaitTime: 52.037ms
> Ozone:
> - TotalTime: 8s917ms
> - ScannerIoWaitTime: 7s454ms{noformat}
> If I disable the local cache explicitly via query option I get the following times for the same scan:
> {noformat}
> HDFS:
> - TotalTime: 7s792ms
> - ScannerIoWaitTime: 6s244ms
> Ozone:
> - TotalTime: 8s963ms
> - ScannerIoWaitTime: 7s464ms{noformat}
> {quote}
> Investigating a bit, [~joemcdonnell] noticed in the Ozone profile
> {noformat}
> - ScannerIoWaitTime: 7s454ms
> - TotalRawHdfsOpenFileTime: 5s782ms
> {noformat}
> Based on profile differences around {{TotalRawHdfsOpenFileTime=5s782ms}} (vs {{0ms}} for HDFS), I believe this is a difference in performance when using the data cache but the file handle cache is disabled. That traces back to an incomplete implementation of [IMPALA-10147|https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IMPALA-10147].
> A data read:
> 1. [Checks that it can open a file handle|https://github.infra.cloudera.com/CDH/Impala/blob/CDWH-2022.0.10.1/be/src/runtime/io/scan-range.cc#L199]. When file handle cache is enabled, this is a [noop|https://github.infra.cloudera.com/CDH/Impala/blob/CDWH-2022.0.10.1/be/src/runtime/io/hdfs-file-reader.cc#L67].
> 2. It will then try to read data. If data cache is enabled, it will [try to read from the data cache|https://github.infra.cloudera.com/CDH/Impala/blob/CDWH-2022.0.10.1/be/src/runtime/io/hdfs-file-reader.cc#L137].
> 3. If data cache hits, that data is returned and any open file handles are unused.
> When the file handle cache is disabled, opening the file handle [calls hdfsOpenFile and hdfsSeek|https://github.infra.cloudera.com/CDH/Impala/blob/CDWH-2022.0.10.1/be/src/runtime/io/hdfs-file-reader.cc#L70-L72]. {{hdfsOpenFile}} in particular is monitored and added to the profile as {{TotalRawHdfsOpenFileTime}}. That time in the Ozone profile accounts for most of the difference in performance between HDFS and Ozone in this case.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-all-unsubscribe@impala.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: issues-all-help@impala.apache.org