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

Support multi-tenant RAM buffers for IndexWriter #13951

Open
wants to merge 5 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

mdmarshmallow
Copy link
Contributor

@mdmarshmallow mdmarshmallow commented Oct 23, 2024

Description

Draft PR to outline my initial approach. I introduced IndexWriterRamManager to control writer flushes. I also have a function IndexWriterRamManager#chooseWriterToFlush that lets the user choose which writer they specifically want to be flushed, sort of like a simple flush policy. Currently it defaults to just choosing the writer with the most RAM usage.

One thing I wanted to avoid was starting another thread to just poll the IndexWriter memory usage, so I just added a listener in IndexWriter#maybeProcessEvents which is called whenever docs are updated or deleted (IndexWriterRamManager#flushIfNecessary). I wanted this method to be called whenever FlushPolicy#onChange was called, as I believe they both kinda do the same thing

No unit tests yet, but will add them! I just wanted to have my approach sanity checked for now

Revision 2

  • Failing some unit tests but changed the general approach to address some of the feedback I received
  • Still need to write new unit tests to test this code
  • Now this will always create a IndexWriterRAMManager that is tied to the IndexWriterConfig. The user can either pass in their own if they want multiple IndexWriter instances to share a single buffer or just let the IndexWriterRAMManager be created per IndexWriter

Revision 3

  • Fixed unit tests

Revision 4

  • Added unit tests and fixed some bugs

@mdmarshmallow mdmarshmallow changed the title Multi-tenant index writer initial commit Support multi-tenant RAM buffers for IndexWriter #13913 Oct 23, 2024
@mdmarshmallow mdmarshmallow changed the title Support multi-tenant RAM buffers for IndexWriter #13913 Support multi-tenant RAM buffers for IndexWriter Oct 23, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

@jpountz jpountz left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for looking into it. It feels like there should be closer integration between this and the existing FlushPolicy/FlushByRamOrCountsPolicy?

I think we'll also want to look into the performance overhead of this. It's likely not good to iterate over tens of IndexWriters on every indexed document to check if the total buffer usage is above the limit?

* @throws IOException if the directory cannot be read/written to, or if it does not exist and
* <code>conf.getOpenMode()</code> is <code>OpenMode.APPEND</code> or if there is any other
* low-level IO error
*/
public IndexWriter(Directory d, IndexWriterConfig conf) throws IOException {
public IndexWriter(
Directory d, IndexWriterConfig conf, IndexWriterRAMManager indexWriterRAMManager)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It should be on the IndexWriterConfig rather than another IndexWriter ctor argument.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sure that makes sense to me


/**
* For managing multiple instances of {@link IndexWriter} sharing the same buffer (configured by
* {@link IndexWriterConfig#setRAMBufferSizeMB})
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It should be the other way around in my opinion, the RAM buffer size should be on IndexWriterRAMManager, and setting a ramBufferSizeMB on IndexWriterConfig would internally create a new IndexWriterRAMManager under the hood that is shared with no other IndexWriter.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sorry I'm probably missing something here - so I get what you're saying about having the IndexWriterRAMManager in the IndexWriterConfig, but what would be the point of creating an IndexWriterRAMManager for a single IndexWriter? Wouldn't DocumentWriterFlushControl be sufficient for this case?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

but what would be the point of creating an IndexWriterRAMManager for a single IndexWriter

I think the idea is to be able to create IndexWriters that don't share their RAM buffer limit with other writers. Maybe we could just set IndexWriterRAMManager to null, if ramBufferSizeMB is explicitly specified in the IW config (instead of creating a new ram manager).

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hmm I took a slightly different approach, will publish a new PR soon. Maybe we can discuss it there but pretty much I just do what @jpountz suggested and move the ramBufferSizeMB to be a value held by the IndexWriterRAMManager. I think we can then discuss if we should just disable calling writer flushes in the manager if there is only a single writer.


/**
* Chooses which writer should be flushed. Default implementation chooses the writer with most RAM
* usage
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

FWIW we ran benchmarks in Elasticsearch, and the approach that worked the best was to flush IndexWriters in a round-robin fashion. This is not intuitive at first sight, but I believe that it works better in practice because it is more likely to flush DWPTs that are little used, and also because otherwise you favor IndexWriters that do little indexing over IndexWriters that do heavy indexing (and are thus more likely to have a large buffer).

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hmm that's interesting! I can make that the default implementation then

@mdmarshmallow
Copy link
Contributor Author

mdmarshmallow commented Oct 24, 2024

Thanks for looking into it. It feels like there should be closer integration between this and the existing FlushPolicy/FlushByRamOrCountsPolicy?

So I actually had the same thought, but when I took a look at FlushPolicy, it seemed very geared towards DW/DWPT, IE:

  public abstract void onChange(
      DocumentsWriterFlushControl control, DocumentsWriterPerThread perThread);

I couldn't think of a clean way to integrate the two... but I'll give it some more thought

I think we'll also want to look into the performance overhead of this. It's likely not good to iterate over tens of IndexWriters on every indexed document to check if the total buffer usage is above the limit?

Ah I thought that the ramBytesUsed() call was cheap but looks like AtomicLong#get() is called under the hood so I'll see if there's a better way to do this. I agree though that performance testing this change makes sense - I haven't quite thought about how to do it though, maybe writing something in luceneutil?

@jpountz
Copy link
Contributor

jpountz commented Oct 25, 2024

I couldn't think of a clean way to integrate the two... but I'll give it some more thought

For what it's worth, these classes are package-private, so we can feel free to change their API.

* @return the IndexWriter to flush
*/
protected static IndexWriter chooseWriterToFlush(
Collection<IndexWriter> writers, IndexWriter callingWriter) {
Copy link
Contributor

@vigyasharma vigyasharma Oct 29, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Do we need the calling writer here?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't use it but I left it there in case someone wants to override the FlushPolicy in such a way that they might need the calling writer, IE: just flush the calling writer every time

"Writer " + id + " has not been registered or has been removed already");
}
long totalRam = 0L;
for (IndexWriter writer : idToWriter.values()) {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Would it make sense to cache ramByesUsed() and only update it for the calling writer?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yeah this makes sense, I didn't realize that ramBytesUsed() is not a necessarily cheap operation. Changed it in the next rev

@mdmarshmallow
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thanks for all the comments guys, I've been pretty busy with some life things/work, but hopefully I'll put out another update by tomorrow!

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.

3 participants