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

Cache all cids in memory in pruner #175

Draft
wants to merge 5 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Draft

Conversation

hannahhoward
Copy link
Collaborator

Goals

Performance testing indicates the pruner is still a huge bottleneck on performance, and the hot spot is reading the all keys chan.

By our calculations, with not too much penalty we can keep a list of all keys in memory, and thus avoid this bottleneck.

Implementation

  • instead of tracking pins, track all cids including whether they are pinned
  • periodically sync with disk
  • use a sync.Pool to avoid unneeded allocations

For discussion

This is complicated enough I want to write tests before anyone merges it, but want folks to review the approach now.

for performance, keep a list of cids in memory
@codecov-commenter
Copy link

codecov-commenter commented Feb 3, 2023

Codecov Report

Base: 5.43% // Head: 5.31% // Decreases project coverage by -0.12% ⚠️

Coverage data is based on head (a1610e9) compared to base (27eabc8).
Patch coverage: 0.00% of modified lines in pull request are covered.

📣 This organization is not using Codecov’s GitHub App Integration. We recommend you install it so Codecov can continue to function properly for your repositories. Learn more

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##           master    #175      +/-   ##
=========================================
- Coverage    5.43%   5.31%   -0.12%     
=========================================
  Files          14      14              
  Lines        1639    1674      +35     
=========================================
  Hits           89      89              
- Misses       1545    1580      +35     
  Partials        5       5              
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
blocks/randompruner.go 0.00% <0.00%> (ø)

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

☔ View full report at Codecov.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

blocks/randompruner.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
blocks/randompruner.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@rvagg
Copy link
Collaborator

rvagg commented Feb 3, 2023

I still hate this file-writing business. I reckon now it'd be more efficient, and safe, to just iterate over the CID map and roll the dice on each one, with some probability of 1% or something small. Delete when they lose the dice roll and aren't pinned, stop iterating if we reach our threshold, or iterate again if we haven't (maybe with some safety around it like don't loop more than 20 times). Go's unstable map iteration ordering even helps a bit here.

blocks/randompruner.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@elijaharita
Copy link
Contributor

i didn't take the effort to estimate how much memory cids would take up when i wrote this. in my head it sounded big. but u are right, with a blockstore target size of around 100GiB it seems fairly negligible, a server who wants bigger cache should have plenty of memory available too.

if we do keep all the cids in memory, it opens the door for a much less dumb pruner solution - fifo? doesn't need to be implemented now but probably should do at some point.

@elijaharita
Copy link
Contributor

and i think @rvagg is right, file io definitely should go away now if keys are in memory already

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 this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants