Crescando: Predictable Performance for Unpredictable Workloads

Transcription

1 Crescando: Predictable Performance for Unpredictable Workloads G. Alonso, D. Fauser, G. Giannikis, D. Kossmann, J. Meyer, P. Unterbrunner Amadeus S.A. ETH Zurich, Systems Group (Funded by Enterprise Computing Center)

2 Overview Background & Problem Statement Approach Experiments & Results

3 Amadeus Workload Passenger-Booking Database ~ 600 GB of raw data (two years of bookings) single table, denormalized ~ 50 attributes: flight-no, name, date,..., many flags Query Workload up to 4000 queries / second latency guarantees: 2 seconds today: only pre-canned queries allowed Update Workload avg. 600 updates per second (1 update per GB per sec) peak of updates per second data freshness guarantee: 2 seconds

4 Amadeus Query Examples Simple Queries Print passenger list of Flight LH 4711 Give me LH hon circle from Frankfurt to Delhi Complex Queries Give me all Heathrow passengers that need special assistance (e.g., after terror warning) Problems with State-of-the Art Simple queries work only because of mat. views multi-month project to implement new query / process Complex queries do not work at all

5 Why trad. DBMS are a pain? 20'000 MySQL Query 50th MySQL Query 90th MySQL Query 99th 9'000 8'000 Query Latency in msec 15'000 10'000 5'000 7'000 6'000 5'000 4'000 3'000 2'000 1'000 Query Latency in msec Update Load in Updates/sec Performance depends on workload parameters changes in update rate, queries,... -> huge variance impossible / expensive to predict and tune correctly Synthetic Workload Parameter s

6 Goals Predictable (= constant) Performance independent of updates, query types,... Meet SLAs latency, data freshness Affordable Cost ~ 1000 COTS machines are okay (compare to mainframe) Meet Consistency Requirements monotonic reads (ACID not needed) Respect Hardware Trends main-memory, NUMA, large data centers

7 Selected Related Work L. Qiao et. al. Main-memory scan sharing for multi-core CPUs. VLDB '08 Cooperative main-memory scans for ad-hoc OLAP queries (read-only) P. Boncz, M. Zukowski, and N. Nes. MonetDB/X100: Hyperpipelining query execution. CIDR 05 Cooperative scans over vertical partitions on disk K. A. Ross. Selection conditions in main memory. In ACM TODS, 29(1), S. Chandrasekaran and M. J. Franklin. Streaming queries over streaming data VLDB '02 Query-data join G. Candea, N. Polyzotis, R. Vingralek. A Scalable, Predictable Join Operator for Highly Concurrent Data Warehouses. VLDB 09 An always on join operator based on similar requirements and design principles

8 Overview Background & Problem Statement Approach Experiments & Results

9 What is Crescando? A distributed (relational) table: MM on NUMA horizontally partitioned distributed within and across machines Query / update interface SELECT * FROM table WHERE <any predicate> UPDATE table SET <anything> WHERE <any predicate> monotonic reads / writes (SI within a single partition) Some nice properties constant / predictable latency & data freshness solves the Amadeus use case

10 Design Operate MM like disk in shared-nothing architect. Core ~ Spindle (many cores per machine & data center) all data kept in main memory (log to disk for recovery) each core scans one partition of data all the time Batch queries and updates: shared scans do trivial MQO (at scan level on system with single table) control read/update pattern -> no data contention Index queries / not data just as in the stream processing world predictable+optimizable: rebuild indexes every second Updates are processed before reads

11 Crescando in Data Center (N Machines)

12 Crescando on 1 Machine (N Cores) Scan Thread Scan Thread Input Queue (Operations) Split Scan Thread Scan Thread Merge Output Queue (Result Tuples)... Input Queue (Operations) Scan Thread Output Queue (Result Tuples)

13 {record, {query-ids} } results is Predicate Indexes Queries + Upd. qs Unindexed Queries Active Queries Record 0 records Crescando on 1 Core Snapshot n Snapshot n+1 data partition Read Cursor Write Cursor

14 Scanning a Partition Record 0 Snapshot n+1 Snapshot n Read Cursor Write Cursor

15 Scanning a Partition Record 0 Snapshot n+1 Snapshot n Read Cursor Write Cursor Merge cursors

16 Scanning a Partition Record 0 Build indexes for next batch of queries and updates Snapshot n+1 Snapshot n Read Cursor Write Cursor Merge cursors

17 Amadeus Queries (Oper. BI) Transactions (OLTP) Aggregator Aggregator Aggregator Aggregator Aggregator Key / Value Mainframe Query / {Key} Update stream (queue) Store (e.g., S3) Store (e.g., S3) Crescando Nodes

18 Implementation Details Optimization decide for batch of queries which indexes to build runs once every second (must be fast) Query + update indexes different indexes for different kinds of predicates e.g., hash tables, R-trees, tries,... must fit in L2 cache (better L1 cache) Probe indexes Updates in right order, queries in any order Persistence & Recovery Log updates / inserts to disk (not a bottleneck)

19 Crescando in the Cloud Client HTTP XML, JSON, HTML Web Server FCGI,... XML, JSON, HTML App Server SQL records DB Server get/put block Store

20 Crescando in the Cloud Client Client Client Client HTTP FCGI,... SQL Web Server App Server DB Server XML, JSON, HTML XML, JSON, HTML records Web/App Aggregator Workload Splitter XML, JSON, HTML Web/App Aggregator queries/updates <-> records Store (e.g., S3) Store (e.g., S3) Crescando Nodes get/put block Store

21 Overview Background & Problem Statement Approach Experiments & Results

22 Benchmark Environment Crescando Implementation Shared library for POSIX systems Heavily optimized C++ with some inline assembly Benchmark Machines 16 core Opteron machine with 32 GB DDR2 RAM 64-bit Linux SMP kernel, ver , NUMA enabled Benchmark Database The Amadeus Ticket view (one record per passenger per flight) ~350byte per record; 47 attributes, many of them flags Benchmarks use 15 GB of net data Query + Update Workload Current: Amadeus Workload (from Amadeus traces) Predicted: Synthetic workload with varying predicate selectivity

23 Multi-core Scale-up Q/s 10.5 Q/s 1.9 Q/s Round-robin partitioning, read-only Amadeus workload, vary number of threads

24 Latency vs. Query Volume thrashing, queue overflows L1 cache base latency of scan L2 cache Hash partitioning, read-only Amadeus workload, vary queries/sec

25 Latency vs. Concurrent Writes Hash partitioning, Amadeus workload, 2000 queries/sec, vary updates

26 Crescando vs. MySQL - Latency updates + big queries cause massive queuing s = 1.4: 1 / 3,000 queries do not hit an index s = 1.5: 1 / 10,000 queries do not hit an index 16s = time for full-table scan in MySQL Amadeus workload, 100 q/sec, vary updates Synthetic read-only workload, vary skew

27 Crescando vs. MySQL - Throughput read-only workload! Amadeus workload, vary updates Synthetic read-only workload, vary skew

28 Equivalent Annual Cost (2009) 1' EAC/GB of Crescando Storage EAC/GB Years of Ownership 8 x Opteron 8439 SE 4 x Opteron 8439 SE 4 x Opteron 8393 SE 4 x Xeon X x Xeon E7450

29 Summary of Experiments high concurrent query + update throughput Amadeus: ~4000 queries/sec + ~1000 updates/sec updates do not impact latency of queries predictable and guaranteed latency depends on size of partition: not optimal, good enough cost and energy effeciency depends on workload: great for hot data, heavy WL consistency: write monotonicity, can build SI on top works great on NUMA! controls read+write pattern linear scale-up with number of cores

30 Status & Outlook Status Fully operational system Extensive experiments at Amadeus Production: Summer 2011 (planned) Outlook Column store variant of Crescando Compression E-cast: flexible partitioning & replication Joins over normalized data, Aggregation,...

31 Conclusion A new way to process queries Massively parallel, simple, predictable Not always optimal, but always good enough Ideal for operational BI High query throughput Concurrent updates with freshness guarantees Great building block for many scenarios Rethink database and storage system architecture