How to initiate warming when a cache is created? - ignite

I'd like to to use an Ignite cluster to warm a PARTITIONED cache from an existing database. The existing database is not partitioned and expensive to scan, so I'd like to perform a single scan when the cache is created by the cluster. Once the job completes, the result would be a cache containing all data from the existing database partitioned and evenly distributed across the cluster.
How do you implement a job that runs when a cache is created by Ignite?

Ignite integrates with underlying stores via CacheStore [1] implementations. Refer to [2] for details about your particular use case.
[1] https://apacheignite.readme.io/docs/persistent-store
[2] https://apacheignite.readme.io/docs/data-loading

You can create a Service that runs once on cluster start and then cancels itself. It can use a cache to store state, so it will not run if it's deployed in the cluster a second time.
The following abstract Service runs executeOnce once per cluster the first time it's deployed after cluster start:
abstract class ExecuteOnceService extends Service {
val ExecuteOnceCacheName = "_execute_once_service"
val config = new CacheConfiguration[String, java.lang.Boolean](ExecuteOnceCacheName)
.setCacheMode(CacheMode.PARTITIONED)
.setAtomicityMode(CacheAtomicityMode.TRANSACTIONAL)
#IgniteInstanceResource
var ignite: Ignite = _
override def execute(ctx: ServiceContext): Unit = {
val cache = ignite.getOrCreateCache(config)
val executed = cache.getAndPutIfAbsent(ctx.name(), java.lang.Boolean.TRUE)
if (executed != java.lang.Boolean.TRUE) executeOnce(ctx)
ignite.services().cancel(ctx.name())
}
def executeOnce(ctx: ServiceContext): Unit
}

Related

Infinispan clustered lock performance does not improve with more nodes?

I have a piece of code that is essentially executing the following with Infinispan in embedded mode, using version 13.0.0 of the -core and -clustered-lock modules:
#Inject
lateinit var lockManager: ClusteredLockManager
private fun getLock(lockName: String): ClusteredLock {
lockManager.defineLock(lockName)
return lockManager.get(lockName)
}
fun createSession(sessionId: String) {
tryLockCounter.increment()
logger.debugf("Trying to start session %s. trying to acquire lock", sessionId)
Future.fromCompletionStage(getLock(sessionId).lock()).map {
acquiredLockCounter.increment()
logger.debugf("Starting session %s. Got lock", sessionId)
}.onFailure {
logger.errorf(it, "Failed to start session %s", sessionId)
}
}
I take this piece of code and deploy it to kubernetes. I then run it in six pods distributed over six nodes in the same region. The code exposes createSession with random Guids through an API. This API is called and creates sessions in chunks of 500, using a k8s service in front of the pods which means the load gets balanced over the pods. I notice that the execution time to acquire a lock grows linearly with the amount of sessions. In the beginning it's around 10ms, when there's about 20_000 sessions it takes about 100ms and the trend continues in a stable fashion.
I then take the same code and run it, but this time with twelve pods on twelve nodes. To my surprise I see that the performance characteristics are almost identical to when I had six pods. I've been digging in to the code but still haven't figured out why this is, I'm wondering if there's a good reason why infinispan here doesn't seem to perform better with more nodes?
For completeness the configuration of the locks are as follows:
val global = GlobalConfigurationBuilder.defaultClusteredBuilder()
global.addModule(ClusteredLockManagerConfigurationBuilder::class.java)
.reliability(Reliability.AVAILABLE)
.numOwner(1)
and looking at the code the clustered locks is using DIST_SYNC which should spread out the load of the cache onto the different nodes.
UPDATE:
The two counters in the code above are simply micrometer counters. It is through them and prometheus that I can see how the lock creation starts to slow down.
It's correctly observed that there's one lock created per session id, this is per design what we'd like. Our use case is that we want to ensure that a session is running in at least one place. Without going to deep into detail this can be achieved by ensuring that we at least have two pods that are trying to acquire the same lock. The Infinispan library is great in that it tells us directly when the lock holder dies without any additional extra chattiness between pods, which means that we have a "cheap" way of ensuring that execution of the session continues when one pod is removed.
After digging deeper into the code I found the following in CacheNotifierImpl in the core library:
private CompletionStage<Void> doNotifyModified(K key, V value, Metadata metadata, V previousValue,
Metadata previousMetadata, boolean pre, InvocationContext ctx, FlagAffectedCommand command) {
if (clusteringDependentLogic.running().commitType(command, ctx, extractSegment(command, key), false).isLocal()
&& (command == null || !command.hasAnyFlag(FlagBitSets.PUT_FOR_STATE_TRANSFER))) {
EventImpl<K, V> e = EventImpl.createEvent(cache.wired(), CACHE_ENTRY_MODIFIED);
boolean isLocalNodePrimaryOwner = isLocalNodePrimaryOwner(key);
Object batchIdentifier = ctx.isInTxScope() ? null : Thread.currentThread();
try {
AggregateCompletionStage<Void> aggregateCompletionStage = null;
for (CacheEntryListenerInvocation<K, V> listener : cacheEntryModifiedListeners) {
// Need a wrapper per invocation since converter could modify the entry in it
configureEvent(listener, e, key, value, metadata, pre, ctx, command, previousValue, previousMetadata);
aggregateCompletionStage = composeStageIfNeeded(aggregateCompletionStage,
listener.invoke(new EventWrapper<>(key, e), isLocalNodePrimaryOwner));
}
The lock library uses a clustered Listener on the entry modified event, and this one uses a filter to only notify when the key for the lock is modified. It seems to me the core library still has to check this condition on every registered listener, which of course becomes a very big list as the number of sessions grow. I suspect this to be the reason and if it is it would be really really awesome if the core library supported a kind of key filter so that it could use a hashmap for these listeners instead of going through a whole list with all listeners.
I believe you are creating a clustered lock per session id. Is this what you need ? what is the acquiredLockCounter? We are about to deprecate the "lock" method in favour of "tryLock" with timeout since the lock method will block forever if the clustered lock is never acquired. Do you ever unlock the clustered lock in another piece of code? If you shared a complete reproducer of the code will be very helpful for us. Thanks!

Akka Cluster Sharding - How to test

I want to test a function that at some point asks an EventSourcedBehaviorWithEnforcedReplies using ClusterSharing
I prepare the ClusterSharding like:
ClusterSharding.get(testKit.system()).init(
Entity.of(
ENTITY_TYPE_KEY,
entityContext -> new Entity(entityContext.getEntityId())));
The function sends a command :
CompletionStage<ActorAnswer> promisedAnswer = sharding
.entityRefFor(ENTITY_TYPE_KEY, identifier)
.ask(CommandToExecute::new, ASK_TIMEOUT)
The CompletionStage never gets executed...
What am I missing?
After same research
1) check that in your application-test.conf
akka {
actor {
provider = cluster
}
}
2) Cluster needs to be created and join cluster (self join) - easiest that I found was programmatically
Cluster cluster = Cluster.get(testKit.system());
cluster.manager().tell(Join.create(cluster.selfMember().address()));
3) Then we can talk about cluster sharding :)
ClusterSharding.get(testKit.system()).init(
clusterSharding.init(
Entity.of(ENTITY_TYPE_KEY, entityContext -> new Entity(entityContext.getEntityId())));

Why Apache Ignite Cache.replace-K-V-V api call performing slow?

We are running Ignite cluster with 12 nodes running on Ignite 2.7.0 on openjdk
1.8 at RHEL platform.
Seeing heavy cputime spent with https://ignite.apache.org/releases/latest/javadoc/org/apache/ignite/IgniteCache.html#replace-K-V-V-
We are witnessing slowness with one of our process and when we tried to drill it
further by profiling the JVM, the main culprit (taking ~78% of total time)
seems to be coming from Ignite cache.repalce(K,V,V) api call.
Out of 77.9 by replace, 39% is taken by GridCacheAdapater.equalVal and 38.5%
by GridCacheAdapter.put
Cache is Partitioned and ATOMIC with readThrough,writeThrough,writeBehindEnabled set to True.
Attaching the profiling snapshot of one node(similar is the profiling result on other nodes), Can someone please check and suggest what
could be the cause OR some known performance issue with this Ignite version related to cache.replace(k,v,v) api ?
JVM Prolfiling Snapshot of one node
I guess that it can be related to next issue:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-5003
The problem there related to the operations for the same key before the previous batch of updates (that contains this key) will be stored in the database.
As I see it should be added to Ignite 2.8.
Update:
I tested putAll operation. From the next two pictures you can see that putAll waiting for GridCacheWriteBehindStore.write (two different threads) that contains updateCache:
public void write(Entry<? extends K, ? extends V> entry) {
try {
if (log.isDebugEnabled())
log.debug(S.toString("Store put",
"key", entry.getKey(), true,
"val", entry.getValue(), true));
updateCache(entry.getKey(), entry, StoreOperation.PUT);
}
And provided issue can affect your put operations (or replace as well).

Apache Ignite + Spark Dataframes: Client vs Server Doubts

I've been trying to integrate ignite and spark. The goal of my application is to write and read spark dataframes to/from ignite. However, I'm facing several issues with larger datasets (> 200 000 000 rows).
I have a 6-node Ignite cluster running on YARN. It has 160Gb of memory and 12 cores. I am trying to save the dataframe using spark (around 20Gb of raw text data) in an Ignite cache (partitioned 1 backup):
def main(args: Array[String]) {
val ignite = setupIgnite
closeAfter(ignite) { _ ⇒
implicit val spark: SparkSession = SparkSession.builder
.appName("Ignite Benchmark")
.getOrCreate()
val customer = readDF("csv", "|", Schemas.customerSchema, "hdfs://master.local:8020/apps/hive/warehouse/ssbplus100/customer")
val part = readDF("csv", "|", Schemas.partSchema, "hdfs:// master.local:8020/apps/hive/warehouse/ssbplus100/part")
val supplier = readDF("csv", "|", Schemas.supplierSchema, "hdfs:// master.local:8020/apps/hive/warehouse/ssbplus100/supplier")
val dateDim = readDF("csv", "|", Schemas.dateDimSchema, "hdfs:// master.local:8020/apps/hive/warehouse/ssbplus100/date_dim")
val lineorder = readDF("csv", "|", Schemas.lineorderSchema, "hdfs:// master.local:8020/apps/hive/warehouse/ssbplus100/lineorder")
writeDF(customer, "customer", List("custkey"), TEMPLATES.REPLICATED)
writeDF(part, "part", List("partkey"), TEMPLATES.REPLICATED)
writeDF(supplier, "supplier", List("suppkey"), TEMPLATES.REPLICATED)
writeDF(dateDim, "date_dim", List("datekey"), TEMPLATES.REPLICATED)
writeDF(lineorder.limit(200000000), "lineorder", List("orderkey, linenumber"), TEMPLATES.NO_BACKUP)
}
}
At some point, the spark application retrieves this error:
class org.apache.ignite.internal.mem.IgniteOutOfMemoryException: Out of memory in data region [name=default, initSize=256.0 MiB, maxSize=12.6 GiB, persistenceEnabled=false] Try the following:
^-- Increase maximum off-heap memory size (DataRegionConfiguration.maxSize)
^-- Enable Ignite persistence (DataRegionConfiguration.persistenceEnabled)
^-- Enable eviction or expiration policies
at org.apache.ignite.internal.pagemem.impl.PageMemoryNoStoreImpl.allocatePage(PageMemoryNoStoreImpl.java:304)
at org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.persistence.freelist.AbstractFreeList.allocateDataPage(AbstractFreeList.java:463)
at org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.persistence.freelist.AbstractFreeList.insertDataRow(AbstractFreeList.java:501)
at org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.persistence.RowStore.addRow(RowStore.java:97)
at org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.IgniteCacheOffheapManagerImpl$CacheDataStoreImpl.createRow(IgniteCacheOffheapManagerImpl.java:1302)
at org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheMapEntry$UpdateClosure.call(GridCacheMapEntry.java:4426)
at org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheMapEntry$UpdateClosure.call(GridCacheMapEntry.java:4371)
at org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.persistence.tree.BPlusTree$Invoke.invokeClosure(BPlusTree.java:3083)
at org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.persistence.tree.BPlusTree$Invoke.access$6200(BPlusTree.java:2977)
at org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.persistence.tree.BPlusTree.invokeDown(BPlusTree.java:1726)
at org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.persistence.tree.BPlusTree.invokeDown(BPlusTree.java:1703)
at org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.persistence.tree.BPlusTree.invokeDown(BPlusTree.java:1703)
at org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.persistence.tree.BPlusTree.invoke(BPlusTree.java:1610)
at org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.IgniteCacheOffheapManagerImpl$CacheDataStoreImpl.invoke(IgniteCacheOffheapManagerImpl.java:1249)
at org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.IgniteCacheOffheapManagerImpl.invoke(IgniteCacheOffheapManagerImpl.java:352)
at org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheMapEntry.storeValue(GridCacheMapEntry.java:3602)
at org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.GridCacheMapEntry.initialValue(GridCacheMapEntry.java:2774)
at org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.datastreamer.DataStreamerImpl$IsolatedUpdater.receive(DataStreamerImpl.java:2125)
at org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.datastreamer.DataStreamerUpdateJob.call(DataStreamerUpdateJob.java:140)
at org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.datastreamer.DataStreamProcessor.localUpdate(DataStreamProcessor.java:400)
at org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.datastreamer.DataStreamProcessor.processRequest(DataStreamProcessor.java:305)
at org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.datastreamer.DataStreamProcessor.access$000(DataStreamProcessor.java:60)
at org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.datastreamer.DataStreamProcessor$1.onMessage(DataStreamProcessor.java:90)
at org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.communication.GridIoManager.invokeListener(GridIoManager.java:1556)
at org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.communication.GridIoManager.processRegularMessage0(GridIoManager.java:1184)
at org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.communication.GridIoManager.access$4200(GridIoManager.java:125)
at org.apache.ignite.internal.managers.communication.GridIoManager$9.run(GridIoManager.java:1091)
at org.apache.ignite.internal.util.StripedExecutor$Stripe.run(StripedExecutor.java:511)
at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:748)
I think the problem lies in the ignite server being initiated before the spark session, as in the official ignite examples. This server starts caching data that I am writing to the ignite cache and exceeds its default region size max (12Gb, which is different from the 20GB I defined for my yarn cluster). However, I don’t understand how the examples and documentation tells us to create an ignite server before the spark context (and session I assume). I understand that without this the application will hang once all the spark jobs are terminated, but I don’t understand the logic of having a server on the spark application that starts caching data. I’m very confused by this concept, and for now I have setup this ignite instance inside spark to be a client.
This is a strange behavior as all my ignite nodes (running on YARN) have 20GB defined for the default region (I changed it and verified it). This indicates me that the error must come from the ignite servers started on Spark (I think it is one on the driver and one per worker), as I did not changed the default region size in the ignite-config.xml of the spark application (defaults to 12GB as the error demonstrates). However, does this make sense? Should Spark throw out this error being its only goal to read and write data from/to ignite? Is Spark participating in caching any data and does this mean that I should set client mode in the ignite-config.xml of my application, despite the fact that the official examples are not using client mode?
Best regards,
Carlos
First, the Spark-Ignite connector already connects in client mode.
I'm going to assume that you have enough memory, but you can follow the example in the Capacity Planning guide to be sure.
However, I think the problem is that you're following the sample application a bit too closely(!). The sample -- so as to be self-contained -- includes both a server and a Spark client. If you already have an Ignite cluster, you don't need to start a server in your Spark client.
This is a slightly hacked down example from a real application (in Java, sorry):
try (SparkSession spark = SparkSession
.builder()
.appName("AppName")
.master(sparkMaster)
.config("spark.executor.extraClassPath", igniteClassPath())
.getOrCreate()) {
// Get source DataFrame
DataSet<Row> results = ....
results.write()
.outputMode("append")
.format(IgniteDataFrameSettings.FORMAT_IGNITE())
.option(IgniteDataFrameSettings.OPTION_CONFIG_FILE(), igniteCfgFile)
.option(IgniteDataFrameSettings.OPTION_TABLE(), "Results")
.option(IgniteDataFrameSettings.OPTION_STREAMER_ALLOW_OVERWRITE(), true)
.option(IgniteDataFrameSettings.OPTION_CREATE_TABLE_PRIMARY_KEY_FIELDS(), "name")
.option(IgniteDataFrameSettings.OPTION_CREATE_TABLE_PARAMETERS(), "backups=1")
.write();
}
I didn't test, but you should get the idea: you need to provide a URL to an Ignite configuration file; it creates the client to connect to that server behind the scenes.

Apache Ignite - Distibuted Queue and Executors

I am planning to use Apache Ignite Distributed Queue.
I am using Ignite with a spring boot application. So, on bootup, I will be adding 20 names in a queue. But, since there are 3 servers in a cluster, the same 20 names gets added 3 times. But, i want to add them only once in the queue.
Ignite ignite = Ignition.ignite();
IgniteQueue<String> queue = ignite.queue(
"queueName", // Queue name.
0, // Queue capacity. 0 for unbounded queue.
null // Collection configuration.
);
Distributed executors, will be able to poll from the queue and run the task. Here, the executor is expected to poll, run the task and then add the same name to the queue. Trying to achieve round robin here.
Only one executor should be running the same task at any point of time, though there are multiple servers in a cluster.
Any suggestion for this.
You can launch ignite cluster singleton service https://apacheignite.readme.io/docs/cluster-singletons which will fill data to queue. Also you can adding data from coordinator node (oldest node in cluster) ignite.cluster().forOldest().node().isLocal()
I fixed bootup time duplicate cache loading issue this way:
final IgniteAtomicLong cacheLoadCnt = ignite.atomicLong(cacheName + "Cnt", 0, true);
if (cacheLoadCnt.get() == 0) {
loadCache();
cacheLoadCnt.addAndGet(1);
}