mirror of https://github.com/apache/druid.git
finishing the paper
This commit is contained in:
parent
b4f1591260
commit
5fd506cd51
Binary file not shown.
|
@ -76,7 +76,7 @@ came to the conclusion that there was nothing in the open source world that
|
|||
could be fully leveraged for our requirements.
|
||||
|
||||
We ended up creating Druid, an open-source, distributed, column-oriented,
|
||||
realtime analytical data store. In many ways, Druid shares similarities with
|
||||
real-time analytical data store. In many ways, Druid shares similarities with
|
||||
other OLAP systems \cite{oehler2012ibm, schrader2009oracle, lachev2005applied},
|
||||
interactive query systems \cite{melnik2010dremel}, main-memory databases
|
||||
\cite{farber2012sap}, and widely-known distributed data stores
|
||||
|
@ -413,7 +413,7 @@ distribution on historical nodes. The coordinator nodes tell historical nodes
|
|||
to load new data, drop outdated data, replicate data, and move data to load
|
||||
balance. Druid uses a multi-version concurrency control swapping protocol for
|
||||
managing immutable segments in order to maintain stable views. If any
|
||||
immutable segment contains data that is wholly obseleted by newer segments, the
|
||||
immutable segment contains data that is wholly obsoleted by newer segments, the
|
||||
outdated segment is dropped from the cluster. Coordinator nodes undergo a
|
||||
leader-election process that determines a single node that runs the coordinator
|
||||
functionality. The remaining coordinator nodes act as redundant backups.
|
||||
|
@ -678,7 +678,7 @@ A sample count query over a week of data is as follows:
|
|||
"aggregations" : [{"type":"count", "name":"rows"}]
|
||||
}
|
||||
\end{verbatim}}
|
||||
The query shown above will return a count of the number of rows in the Wikipedia datasource
|
||||
The query shown above will return a count of the number of rows in the Wikipedia data source
|
||||
from 2013-01-01 to 2013-01-08, filtered for only those rows where the value of the ``page" dimension is
|
||||
equal to ``Ke\$ha". The results will be bucketed by day and will be a JSON array of the following form:
|
||||
{\scriptsize\begin{verbatim}
|
||||
|
@ -780,11 +780,12 @@ involving all columns are very rare.
|
|||
|
||||
A few notes about our results:
|
||||
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=*,beginpenalty=5000,topsep=0pt]
|
||||
\item The results are from a ``hot" tier in our production cluster. We run
|
||||
several tiers of varying performance in production.
|
||||
\item The results are from a ``hot" tier in our production cluster. There were
|
||||
approximately 50 data sources in the tier and several hundred users issuing
|
||||
queries.
|
||||
|
||||
\item There is approximately 10.5TB of RAM available in the ``hot" tier and
|
||||
approximately 10TB of segments loaded (including replication). Collectively,
|
||||
\item There was approximately 10.5TB of RAM available in the ``hot" tier and
|
||||
approximately 10TB of segments loaded. Collectively,
|
||||
there are about 50 billion Druid rows in this tier. Results for
|
||||
every data source are not shown.
|
||||
|
||||
|
@ -799,10 +800,10 @@ Query latencies are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:query_latency} and the queries per
|
|||
minute are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:queries_per_min}. Across all the various
|
||||
data sources, average query latency is approximately 550 milliseconds, with
|
||||
90\% of queries returning in less than 1 second, 95\% in under 2 seconds, and
|
||||
99\% of queries returning in less than 10 seconds.
|
||||
Occasionally we observe spikes in latency, as observed on February 19,
|
||||
in which case network issues on the Memcached instances were compounded by very high
|
||||
query load on one of our largest datasources.
|
||||
99\% of queries returning in less than 10 seconds. Occasionally we observe
|
||||
spikes in latency, as observed on February 19, in which case network issues on
|
||||
the Memcached instances were compounded by very high query load on one of our
|
||||
largest datasources.
|
||||
|
||||
\begin{figure}
|
||||
\centering
|
||||
|
@ -881,7 +882,7 @@ ingestion setup consists of 6 nodes, totalling 360GB of RAM and 96 cores
|
|||
(12 x Intel Xeon E5-2670).
|
||||
|
||||
Note that in this setup, several other data sources were being ingested and
|
||||
many other Druid related ingestion tasks were running concurrently on those machines.
|
||||
many other Druid related ingestion tasks were running concurrently on the machines.
|
||||
|
||||
Druid's data ingestion latency is heavily dependent on the complexity of the
|
||||
data set being ingested. The data complexity is determined by the number of
|
||||
|
@ -948,19 +949,19 @@ explore use case, the number of queries issued by a single user is much higher
|
|||
than in the reporting use case. Exploratory queries often involve progressively
|
||||
adding filters for the same time range to narrow down results. Users tend to
|
||||
explore short time intervals of recent data. In the generate report use case,
|
||||
users query for much longer data intervals, but users also already have the
|
||||
queries they want to issue in mind.
|
||||
users query for much longer data intervals, but users also already know the
|
||||
queries they want to issue.
|
||||
|
||||
\paragraph{Multitenancy}
|
||||
Expensive concurrent queries can be problematic in a multitenant
|
||||
environment. Queries for large datasources may end up hitting every historical
|
||||
environment. Queries for large data sources may end up hitting every historical
|
||||
node in a cluster and consume all cluster resources. Smaller, cheaper queries
|
||||
may be blocked from executing in such cases. We introduced query prioritization
|
||||
to address these issues. Each historical node is able to prioritize which
|
||||
segments it needs to scan. Proper query planning is critical for production
|
||||
workloads. Thankfully, queries for a significant amount of data tend to be for
|
||||
reporting use cases, and users are not expecting the same level of
|
||||
interactivity as when they are querying to explore data.
|
||||
reporting use cases and can be deprioritized. Users do not expect the same level of
|
||||
interactivity in this use case as when they are exploring data.
|
||||
|
||||
\paragraph{Node failures}
|
||||
Single node failures are common in distributed environments, but many nodes
|
||||
|
@ -979,7 +980,7 @@ center to fail. In such cases, new machines need to be provisioned. As long as
|
|||
deep storage is still available, cluster recovery time is network bound as
|
||||
historical nodes simply need to redownload every segment from deep storage. We
|
||||
have experienced such failures in the past, and the recovery time was around
|
||||
several hours in the AWS ecosystem on several TBs of data.
|
||||
several hours in the AWS ecosystem for several TBs of data.
|
||||
|
||||
\subsection{Operational Monitoring}
|
||||
Proper monitoring is critical to run a large scale distributed cluster.
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue