Download - Cassandra at Twitter

Cassandra SF July 11th, 2011

Cassandra @

Team

@lennox

@stuhood @rk

Chris Goffinet

Stu Hood

Oscar Moll

Alan Liang Melvin Wang

Ryan King

@padauk9@alan

Measuring ourselves

#prostyle

Measuring ourselves‣ Hardware Platform

‣ Data Storage

‣ Latency and Throughput

‣ Operational Efficiency

‣ Capacity Planning

‣ Developer Integration

‣ Testing

Hardware Platform‣ CPU Core Utilization

‣ Memory bandwidth and consumption

‣ Machine cost

‣ RAID

‣ Filesystems and I/O Schedulers

‣ IOPS

‣ Network bandwidth

‣ Kernel

‣

‣ CPU Core Utilization

‣ Memory bandwidth and consumption

‣ Machine cost

‣ RAID

‣ Filesystems and I/O Schedulers

‣ IOPS

‣ Network bandwidth

‣ Kernel

‣

Hardware Platform

‣ Ext4

‣ Data mode = Ordered

‣ Data mode = Writeback

‣ XFS

‣ RAID

‣ 0 and 10

‣ far side vs near side copies

‣ 128 vs 256 vs 512 stripe sizes

Filesystem configurations

Hardware Platform

I/O Schedulers‣ CFQ vs Noop vs Deadline vs Anticipatory

‣ Workloads

‣ Timeseries

‣ 50/50

‣ Measure

‣ p90

‣ p99

‣ Average

‣ Max

Hardware Platform

I/O Schedulers

Scheduler p90 p99 Average Max

cfq 73ms 210ms 11.72ms 4940ms

noop 47ms 167ms 9.12ms 4132ms

deadline 75ms 233ms 12.72ms 3718ms

anticipatory 76ms 214ms 12.37ms 5120ms

5050 - Reads

Hardware Platform

I/O Schedulers

Scheduler p90 p99 Average Max

cfq 2ms 2ms 2.02ms 5927ms

noop 2ms 2ms 2.06ms 3475ms

deadline 2ms 2ms 2.13ms 3718ms

anticipatory 2ms 2ms 2.03ms 5119ms

5050 - Writes

Hardware Platform


‣ Data Storage





‣ Testing

‣ How efficient is our on-disk storage?

‣ Could we do compression?

‣ Do we have CPU to trade?

‣ How do we push for better?

‣ Is it worth it?

Data Storage

Old New

Easy to Implement

Checksumming

Varint Encoding

Delta Encoding

Type Specific Compression

Fixed Size Blocks

Data Storage

Old New

Easy to Implement X

Checksumming X

Varint Encoding X

Delta Encoding X

Type Specific Compression X

Fixed Size Blocks X

Data Storage

How did we do?

Data Storage

‣ 1.5x?

‣ 2.5x?

‣ 3.5x?

Data Storage

7.03x

Data Storage

Rows Columns Size on diskbytes per column

Current Format 10000 250M 16,716,432,189 66.8

New Format 10000 250M 2,375,027,696 9.5

10,00o rows; 250M columns

Data Storage

Timeseries

LongType column names

CounterColumnType values

Data Storage‣ compression

‣ type specific

‣ fine-grained corruption detection

‣ index promotion

‣ normalizing narrow and wide rows

‣ predictable performance

‣ no double-pass on compaction

‣ range and slice deletes


‣ Data Storage





‣ Testing

‣ What are our issues?

‣ Compaction Performance?

‣ Caching?

‣ Too many disk seeks?

‣ Garbage Collection?

Latency and Throughput

‣ Compaction


‣ Multithread Compaction + Throttling

‣ Compact each bucket in parallel

‣ Throttle across all buckets

‣ Compaction running all the time

‣ CASSANDRA-2191

‣ CASSANDRA-2156


‣ Measure latency

‣ p99

‣ p999

‣ No averages!

‣ Every customer has p99 and p999 targets we must hit

‣ 24x7 on-call rotation


Latency and Throughput‣ Caching?

‣ In-heap

‣ Off-heap

‣ Pluggable cache

‣ Memcache

Case Study: Tweet Button

‣ Growth was requiring entire dataset in memory. Why?

‣ How big is the active dataset within 24hours?

‣ What happens when dataset outgrows memory?

‣ Could other storage solutions do better?

‣ What are we missing here?


‣ Key Size Variable length (each one a url)

‣ Implement hashing on keys

‣ Can we do better?

‣ But... the cache in Java isn’t very efficient...

‣ or is it?


Case Study: Tweet Button‣ On-heap

‣ Requires us to scale the JVM heap with cache

‣ Off-heap

‣ Store pointers to data allocated out of the JVM

‣ Memcache

‣ Out of process

Case Study: Tweet Button‣ On-heap

‣ Data + CLHM overhead (87GB)

‣ Off-heap

‣ CLHM overhead (67GB just the pointers!)

‣ Memcache

‣ Internal overhead + data (48GB!)

‣ * CLHM (Concurrent Linked HashMap)


Cassandra

Memcache

Cassandra

Memcache

Cassandra

Memcache

Cassandra

Memcache

‣ Co-locate memcache on each node

‣ Routing + Cache replication

‣ Write through LRU

‣ Rolling restarts do not cause degraded performance states

Case Study: Tweet Button‣ In production today

‣ Stats

‣ 99th percentile went before 200ms - 800ms when data > memory

‣ 99th percentile now - 2.5ms

‣ New observability stack

‣ Replaces Ganglia

‣ Collect metrics for graphing in real-time

‣ Scale based on machine count + defined metrics

‣ Heavy write throughput requirements

‣ SLA Target

‣ All metrics written under 60 seconds

Case Study: Cuckoo

‣ 1.3 million writes/second

‣ 112 billion writes a day

‣ 3.2 gigabit/s over the network

‣ 492GB of new data per hour

‣ 140MB/s writes across cluster

‣ 70MB/s reads across cluster

Case Study: Cuckoo

‣ 36,000 writes/second

‣ persistently to disk on each node

‣ 36 nodes without RF (Replication Factor)

‣ Replication Factor = 3

‣ 30-35% cpu utilization

‣ FSync Commit Log every 10s

Case Study: Cuckoo

‣ Garbage Collection Challenge

‣ 30-60 second pauses multiple times per hour on each node

‣ Why?

‣ Heap fragmentation

Case Study: Cuckoo

time

value

5.0e+08

1.0e+09

1.5e+09

5.0e+08

1.0e+09

1.5e+09

1000 2000 3000 4000

free_spacemax_chunk

Case Study: Cuckoo

‣ Slab Allocation

‣ Fixed sized chunks (2MB)

‣ Copy byte[] into slabs using CAS (Compare & Swap)

‣ Largely reduced fragmentation

‣ CASSANDRA-2252

Case Study: Cuckoo

No Slab Slab

GC Pause Avg Time 30-60 seconds

Frequency of pause Every hour

Case Study: Cuckoo

No Slab Slab

GC Pause Avg Time 30-60 seconds 5 seconds

Frequency of pause Every hour 3 days 10 hours

Case Study: Cuckoo

‣ Pluggable Compaction

‣ Custom strategy for retention support

‣ Used for our timeseries

‣ Drop SSTables after N days

‣ Make it easy to implement more interesting and intelligent compaction strategies

‣ SSTable Min/Max Timestamp

‣ Read time optimization

Case Study: Cuckoo


‣ Data Storage





‣ Testing

Operational Efficiency‣ Automated infrastructure burn-in process

‣ Rack awareness to handle switch failures

‣ Grow clusters per rack, not per node

‣ Lower Server RPC timeout (200ms to 1s)

‣ Fail fast

‣ Split out RPC timeouts by read & writes

‣ CASSANDRA-2819

‣ Fault tolerance at the disk level

‣ Eject from cluster if raid array fails

‣ CASSANDRA-2118

‣ No swap and dedicated commit log

‣ Multiple hard drive vendors

‣ 300+ nodes in production

‣ Run on cheap commodity hardware

‣ Design for failure

Operational Efficiency

‣ Bad memory that causes corruption

‣ Multiple disks dying on same hosts within hours

‣ Rack switch failures

‣ Memory allocation delays causing JVM to encounter higher latency GC collections (mlockall recommended)

‣ Stop the world pauses if traffic patterns change

Operational EfficiencyWhat failures do we see in production?

‣ Network cards sometimes negotiating down to 100Mbit

‣ Machines randomly die and never come back

‣ Disks auto-ejecting themselves from the raid array

Operational EfficiencyWhat failures do we see in production?

Operational EfficiencyDeploy Process

Cass

Driver Hudson Git

Cass

Cass

Cass Cass

Cass

Cass

Cass

Operational EfficiencyDeploy Process

‣ Deploy to hundreds of nodes in under 20s

‣ Roll the cluster

‣ Disable Gossip on a node

‣ Check ring on all nodes to ensure ‘Down’ state

‣ Drain

‣ Restart


‣ Data Storage





‣ Testing

Capacity Planning‣ In-house capacity planning tool

‣ Collect input from sources:

‣ hardware platform (kernel, hw data)

‣ on-disk serialization overhead

‣ cost of read/write (seeks, index overhead)

‣ query cost (cpu, memory usage)

‣ requirements from customers

Capacity Planning

spec = { 'read_qps': 500, 'write_qps': 1000, 'replication_factor': 3, 'dataset_hot_percent': 0.05, 'latency_95': 350.0, 'latency_99': 250.0, 'read_growth_percentage': 0.1, 'write_growth_percentage': 0.1, ......}

Input Example

Capacity Planning

90 days datasize: 14.49T page cache size: 962.89G number of disks: 68 disk capacity: 15.22T iops: 6800.00/s replication_factor: 3 servers: 51 servers (w/o replication): 17 read_ops: 2323 write_ops: 991066 servers: 57 servers (w/o replication): 19 read_ops: 2877 write_ops: 1143171

Output Example


‣ Data Storage





‣ Testing

Developer Integration‣ Cassie

‣ Light-weight Cassandra Client

‣ Cluster member auto discovery

‣ Uses Finagle (http://github.com/twitter/finagle)

‣ Scala + Java support

‣ Open sourcing

http://github.com/twitter/finagle





‣ Data Storage





‣ Testing

Testing‣ Distributed Testing Harness

‣ Open sourced to community

‣ Custom Internal Build of YCSB

‣ Performance Benchmarking

‣ Custom workloads such as timeseries

‣ Performance Framework

Performance Framework‣ Custom framework that uses YCSB

‣ What we do:

‣ Collect as much data as possible

‣ Measure

‣ Do it again

‣ Generate reports per build

Performance Framework‣ Read/Insert/Update Combinations: 30

‣ Request Targeting (per second): 8

‣ 500, 1000, 2000, 4000, 8000, 16000, 32000, 64000

‣ Payload Sizes: 5

‣ 100, 500, 1000, 2000, 4000 bytes

‣ Single node vs cluster

Performance Framework

Total test combinations: 1,200

Summary‣ Understand your hardware and operating

system

‣ Rigorously exercise your entire stack

‣ Capacity plan with math not guesswork

‣ Measure everything, then do it again

‣ Invest in your storage technology

‣ Automate

‣ Expect everything to fail

We’re hiring

@jointheflock