-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3.3k
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
HBASE-28215: region reopen procedure batching/throttling #5534
Changes from 3 commits
2f30fec
a3a8804
32e08b2
36f7ee1
afa02f9
b8e21c9
8a9f8f4
08991b2
0d010a0
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
|
@@ -17,10 +17,12 @@ | |
*/ | ||
package org.apache.hadoop.hbase.master.procedure; | ||
|
||
import com.google.errorprone.annotations.RestrictedApi; | ||
import java.io.IOException; | ||
import java.util.ArrayList; | ||
import java.util.Collections; | ||
import java.util.List; | ||
import java.util.Set; | ||
import java.util.stream.Collectors; | ||
import org.apache.hadoop.hbase.HRegionLocation; | ||
import org.apache.hadoop.hbase.TableName; | ||
|
@@ -53,6 +55,12 @@ public class ReopenTableRegionsProcedure | |
|
||
private static final Logger LOG = LoggerFactory.getLogger(ReopenTableRegionsProcedure.class); | ||
|
||
public static final String REOPEN_BATCH_BACKOFF_MILLIS_KEY = | ||
"hbase.table.regions.reopen.batch.backoff.ms"; | ||
public static final long REOPEN_BATCH_BACKOFF_MILLIS_DEFAULT = 0L; | ||
public static final String REOPEN_BATCH_SIZE_KEY = "hbase.table.regions.reopen.batch.size"; | ||
public static final int REOPEN_BATCH_SIZE_DEFAULT = Integer.MAX_VALUE; | ||
|
||
private TableName tableName; | ||
|
||
// Specify specific regions of a table to reopen. | ||
|
@@ -61,20 +69,36 @@ public class ReopenTableRegionsProcedure | |
|
||
private List<HRegionLocation> regions = Collections.emptyList(); | ||
|
||
private List<HRegionLocation> currentRegionBatch = Collections.emptyList(); | ||
|
||
private RetryCounter retryCounter; | ||
|
||
private long reopenBatchBackoffMillis; | ||
private int reopenBatchSize; | ||
|
||
public ReopenTableRegionsProcedure() { | ||
regionNames = Collections.emptyList(); | ||
this(null); | ||
} | ||
|
||
public ReopenTableRegionsProcedure(TableName tableName) { | ||
this.tableName = tableName; | ||
this.regionNames = Collections.emptyList(); | ||
this(tableName, Collections.emptyList()); | ||
} | ||
|
||
public ReopenTableRegionsProcedure(final TableName tableName, final List<byte[]> regionNames) { | ||
this(tableName, regionNames, REOPEN_BATCH_BACKOFF_MILLIS_DEFAULT, REOPEN_BATCH_SIZE_DEFAULT); | ||
} | ||
|
||
public ReopenTableRegionsProcedure(final TableName tableName, long reopenBatchBackoffMillis, | ||
int reopenBatchSize) { | ||
this(tableName, Collections.emptyList(), reopenBatchBackoffMillis, reopenBatchSize); | ||
} | ||
|
||
public ReopenTableRegionsProcedure(final TableName tableName, final List<byte[]> regionNames, | ||
long reopenBatchBackoffMillis, int reopenBatchSize) { | ||
this.tableName = tableName; | ||
this.regionNames = regionNames; | ||
this.reopenBatchBackoffMillis = reopenBatchBackoffMillis; | ||
this.reopenBatchSize = reopenBatchSize; | ||
} | ||
|
||
@Override | ||
|
@@ -87,6 +111,12 @@ public TableOperationType getTableOperationType() { | |
return TableOperationType.REGION_EDIT; | ||
} | ||
|
||
@RestrictedApi(explanation = "Should only be called in tests", link = "", | ||
allowedOnPath = ".*/src/test/.*") | ||
public List<HRegionLocation> getCurrentRegionBatch() { | ||
return new ArrayList<>(currentRegionBatch); | ||
} | ||
|
||
private boolean canSchedule(MasterProcedureEnv env, HRegionLocation loc) { | ||
if (loc.getSeqNum() < 0) { | ||
return false; | ||
|
@@ -114,7 +144,8 @@ protected Flow executeFromState(MasterProcedureEnv env, ReopenTableRegionsState | |
setNextState(ReopenTableRegionsState.REOPEN_TABLE_REGIONS_REOPEN_REGIONS); | ||
return Flow.HAS_MORE_STATE; | ||
case REOPEN_TABLE_REGIONS_REOPEN_REGIONS: | ||
for (HRegionLocation loc : regions) { | ||
currentRegionBatch = regions.stream().limit(reopenBatchSize).collect(Collectors.toList()); | ||
for (HRegionLocation loc : currentRegionBatch) { | ||
RegionStateNode regionNode = | ||
env.getAssignmentManager().getRegionStates().getRegionStateNode(loc.getRegion()); | ||
// this possible, maybe the region has already been merged or split, see HBASE-20921 | ||
|
@@ -139,33 +170,57 @@ protected Flow executeFromState(MasterProcedureEnv env, ReopenTableRegionsState | |
case REOPEN_TABLE_REGIONS_CONFIRM_REOPENED: | ||
regions = regions.stream().map(env.getAssignmentManager().getRegionStates()::checkReopened) | ||
.filter(l -> l != null).collect(Collectors.toList()); | ||
if (regions.isEmpty()) { | ||
return Flow.NO_MORE_STATE; | ||
// we need to create a set of region names because the HRegionLocation hashcode is only | ||
// based | ||
// on the server name | ||
Set<byte[]> currentRegionBatchNames = currentRegionBatch.stream() | ||
.map(r -> r.getRegion().getRegionName()).collect(Collectors.toSet()); | ||
currentRegionBatch = regions.stream() | ||
.filter(r -> currentRegionBatchNames.contains(r.getRegion().getRegionName())) | ||
.collect(Collectors.toList()); | ||
if (currentRegionBatch.isEmpty()) { | ||
if (regions.isEmpty()) { | ||
return Flow.NO_MORE_STATE; | ||
} else { | ||
setNextState(ReopenTableRegionsState.REOPEN_TABLE_REGIONS_REOPEN_REGIONS); | ||
if (reopenBatchBackoffMillis > 0) { | ||
backoff(reopenBatchBackoffMillis); | ||
} | ||
return Flow.HAS_MORE_STATE; | ||
} | ||
} | ||
if (regions.stream().anyMatch(loc -> canSchedule(env, loc))) { | ||
if (currentRegionBatch.stream().anyMatch(loc -> canSchedule(env, loc))) { | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I think the changes in this method are sort of confusing. I think the division of labor should be:
If we totally reverted the changes in REOPEN_TABLE_REGIONS_CONFIRM_REOPENED, I think we'd have successfully broken the full region list into batches and the flow would work, just without backoff. So in this method we really just need to add the backoff. The backoff as you have it below looks ok at first glance. This is just a long winded way of saying we should drop the highlighted code :) There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I think this complexity is necessary in order to differentiate between There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Let's look back at the original impl of CONFIRM_REOPEN. It only does the backoff if there are still regions to reopen and none of them are schedulable. Meaning we back off in order to wait for regions to be schedulable. Now let's look at your new code. I see what you are saying. You are basically doing:
The key thing there is that "process next batch". You'd think that would be "re-schedule existing batch". But as is, when you go to process next batch, the first thing REOPEN_REGIONS does is create a new currentRegionBatch. So lets say for the first batch of 50, only 10 reopen. With the current design, you'd expect it to try again to reopen those remaining 40. But it will actually reopen another 50 (40 of which are likely to have been in the last batch). TBH I don't think there's a huge problem with that approach. But given that's how it works, we can simplify this code as I described before -- we don't really care about currentRegionBatch here, just that if any regions are left to reopen and schedulable. If we wanted to do what I think you are intending to do, we probably need to complicate things a bit further. Maybe we update REOPEN_REGIONS to only create currentRegionBatch if it's currently null. Then in CONFIRM_REOPEN, null it out after confirming that they've been reopened. That way, in the above example when we kickoff REOPEN_REGIONS again we'll only open the remaining 40. Does that make sense? Between these 2 options I might opt for the simpler one where we keep REOPEN_REGIONS as is and remove most of the diff from CONFIRM_REOPEN. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. On second thought, after a discussion on https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-25549, i wonder if we should take the safer approach where require each batch to finish before scheduling more. This feature could serve a dual purpose of progressive rollout and rate limiting. We could also trivially update this code to do an actual progressive deploy -- first batch size 1, then 2, then 4, etc up to the current batch size config you added. At that point it stays at that max concurrency until completion. Thoughts on adding that? I think we just need one more field for There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think that's missing a few distinct outcomes of
If I just revert this diff as described then this procedure will just get stuck in infinite loops (that I think could theoretically be exited if TRSP finishes quickly enough?) and all unit tests fail
I like this idea, and I think it would be trivial to add in the current state of this PR. We'd just need to store a maxReopenBatchSize and increase the reopenBatchSize to Math.min(2*reopenBatchSize, maxReopenBatchSize) each time we enter state 2 above There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Ok lets table the missing outcomes/simplification discussion in that case, since we'll want to keep the current logic for the progressive reopen. We'll also want to do as i said, where in CONFIRM we update currentRegionBatch to filter out the reopened regions, and then in REOPEN we should only create a new currentRegionBatch if the existing isEmpty. That way if there's some problematic region in the batch, we won't move on to the next batch until its been reopened. Right now I think we'd just move on and create a new batch including the problematic region + more? Once we have that in there, I need to take another look at the logic here. I think it could be a bit clearer, but don't want to make any suggestions until we have the complete impl in place. In terms of progressive, it'd be nice to start with 1 region but otherwise agree with your Math.min idea. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Sounds good, I just pushed a change which does the following:
|
||
retryCounter = null; | ||
setNextState(ReopenTableRegionsState.REOPEN_TABLE_REGIONS_REOPEN_REGIONS); | ||
if (reopenBatchBackoffMillis > 0) { | ||
backoff(reopenBatchBackoffMillis); | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. This is a little confusing to read. Specifically, the way to backoff is by throwing There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. One other thing to note -- since we do |
||
} | ||
return Flow.HAS_MORE_STATE; | ||
} | ||
// We can not schedule TRSP for all the regions need to reopen, wait for a while and retry | ||
// again. | ||
if (retryCounter == null) { | ||
retryCounter = ProcedureUtil.createRetryCounter(env.getMasterConfiguration()); | ||
} | ||
long backoff = retryCounter.getBackoffTimeAndIncrementAttempts(); | ||
long backoffMillis = retryCounter.getBackoffTimeAndIncrementAttempts(); | ||
LOG.info( | ||
"There are still {} region(s) which need to be reopened for table {} are in " | ||
"There are still {} region(s) which need to be reopened for table {}. {} are in " | ||
+ "OPENING state, suspend {}secs and try again later", | ||
regions.size(), tableName, backoff / 1000); | ||
setTimeout(Math.toIntExact(backoff)); | ||
setState(ProcedureProtos.ProcedureState.WAITING_TIMEOUT); | ||
skipPersistence(); | ||
regions.size(), tableName, currentRegionBatch.size(), backoffMillis / 1000); | ||
backoff(backoffMillis); | ||
throw new ProcedureSuspendedException(); | ||
default: | ||
throw new UnsupportedOperationException("unhandled state=" + state); | ||
} | ||
} | ||
|
||
private void backoff(long millis) throws ProcedureSuspendedException { | ||
setTimeout(Math.toIntExact(millis)); | ||
setState(ProcedureProtos.ProcedureState.WAITING_TIMEOUT); | ||
skipPersistence(); | ||
bbeaudreault marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
throw new ProcedureSuspendedException(); | ||
} | ||
|
||
private List<HRegionLocation> | ||
getRegionLocationsForReopen(List<HRegionLocation> tableRegionsForReopen) { | ||
|
||
|
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,103 @@ | ||
/* | ||
* Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one | ||
* or more contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file | ||
* distributed with this work for additional information | ||
* regarding copyright ownership. The ASF licenses this file | ||
* to you under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the | ||
* "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance | ||
* with the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at | ||
* | ||
* http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 | ||
* | ||
* Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software | ||
* distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS, | ||
* WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied. | ||
* See the License for the specific language governing permissions and | ||
* limitations under the License. | ||
*/ | ||
package org.apache.hadoop.hbase.master.procedure; | ||
|
||
import static org.junit.Assert.assertTrue; | ||
|
||
import java.io.IOException; | ||
import java.time.Duration; | ||
import java.time.Instant; | ||
import java.util.List; | ||
import org.apache.hadoop.conf.Configuration; | ||
import org.apache.hadoop.hbase.HBaseClassTestRule; | ||
import org.apache.hadoop.hbase.HBaseTestingUtil; | ||
import org.apache.hadoop.hbase.TableName; | ||
import org.apache.hadoop.hbase.client.RegionInfo; | ||
import org.apache.hadoop.hbase.master.ServerManager; | ||
import org.apache.hadoop.hbase.procedure2.ProcedureExecutor; | ||
import org.apache.hadoop.hbase.testclassification.MasterTests; | ||
import org.apache.hadoop.hbase.testclassification.MediumTests; | ||
import org.apache.hadoop.hbase.util.Bytes; | ||
import org.junit.AfterClass; | ||
import org.junit.BeforeClass; | ||
import org.junit.ClassRule; | ||
import org.junit.Test; | ||
import org.junit.experimental.categories.Category; | ||
|
||
/** | ||
* Confirm that we will rate limit reopen batches when reopening all table regions. This can avoid | ||
* the pain associated with reopening too many regions at once. | ||
*/ | ||
@Category({ MasterTests.class, MediumTests.class }) | ||
public class TestReopenTableRegionsProcedureBatchBackoff { | ||
|
||
@ClassRule | ||
public static final HBaseClassTestRule CLASS_RULE = | ||
HBaseClassTestRule.forClass(TestReopenTableRegionsProcedureBatchBackoff.class); | ||
|
||
private static final HBaseTestingUtil UTIL = new HBaseTestingUtil(); | ||
|
||
private static TableName TABLE_NAME = TableName.valueOf("BatchBackoff"); | ||
private static final int BACKOFF_MILLIS_PER_RS = 3_000; | ||
private static final int REOPEN_BATCH_SIZE = 1; | ||
|
||
private static byte[] CF = Bytes.toBytes("cf"); | ||
|
||
@BeforeClass | ||
public static void setUp() throws Exception { | ||
Configuration conf = UTIL.getConfiguration(); | ||
conf.setInt(ServerManager.WAIT_ON_REGIONSERVERS_MINTOSTART, 1); | ||
UTIL.startMiniCluster(1); | ||
UTIL.createMultiRegionTable(TABLE_NAME, CF, 10); | ||
} | ||
|
||
@AfterClass | ||
public static void tearDown() throws Exception { | ||
UTIL.shutdownMiniCluster(); | ||
} | ||
|
||
@Test | ||
public void testRegionBatchBackoff() throws IOException { | ||
ProcedureExecutor<MasterProcedureEnv> procExec = | ||
UTIL.getMiniHBaseCluster().getMaster().getMasterProcedureExecutor(); | ||
List<RegionInfo> regions = UTIL.getAdmin().getRegions(TABLE_NAME); | ||
assertTrue(10 <= regions.size()); | ||
ReopenTableRegionsProcedure proc = | ||
new ReopenTableRegionsProcedure(TABLE_NAME, BACKOFF_MILLIS_PER_RS, REOPEN_BATCH_SIZE); | ||
procExec.submitProcedure(proc); | ||
Instant startedAt = Instant.now(); | ||
ProcedureSyncWait.waitForProcedureToComplete(procExec, proc, 60_000); | ||
Instant stoppedAt = Instant.now(); | ||
assertTrue(Duration.between(startedAt, stoppedAt).toMillis() | ||
> (long) regions.size() * BACKOFF_MILLIS_PER_RS); | ||
} | ||
|
||
@Test | ||
public void testRegionBatchNoBackoff() throws IOException { | ||
ProcedureExecutor<MasterProcedureEnv> procExec = | ||
UTIL.getMiniHBaseCluster().getMaster().getMasterProcedureExecutor(); | ||
List<RegionInfo> regions = UTIL.getAdmin().getRegions(TABLE_NAME); | ||
assertTrue(10 <= regions.size()); | ||
int noBackoffMillis = 0; | ||
ReopenTableRegionsProcedure proc = | ||
new ReopenTableRegionsProcedure(TABLE_NAME, noBackoffMillis, REOPEN_BATCH_SIZE); | ||
procExec.submitProcedure(proc); | ||
ProcedureSyncWait.waitForProcedureToComplete(procExec, proc, | ||
(long) regions.size() * BACKOFF_MILLIS_PER_RS); | ||
} | ||
} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Are you sure we need to do this? What if we did something like this:
It feels cleaner to read and understand what's happening. As mentioned in another comment, I'd recommend updating REOPEN_REGIONS to:
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Agreed all around about the feedback here, just pushed a simplification that follows this advice almost exactly. The tests are all still passing of course