irmin
irmin copied to clipboard
mirage
irmin-pack: replace inode's Map by a list of pairs
Codecov Report
Merging #2042 (ad273c5) into main (b5d5e3f) will decrease coverage by
0.01%. The diff coverage is63.82%.
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #2042 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 64.48% 64.47% -0.02%
==========================================
Files 130 130
Lines 15604 15650 +46
==========================================
+ Hits 10063 10091 +28
- Misses 5541 5559 +18
| Impacted Files | Coverage Δ | |
|---|---|---|
| src/irmin-pack/inode.ml | 78.48% <0.00%> (-0.11%) |
:arrow_down: |
| src/irmin/import.ml | 69.89% <65.21%> (-4.58%) |
:arrow_down: |
| src/irmin-fs/unix/irmin_fs_unix.ml | 67.09% <0.00%> (-0.65%) |
:arrow_down: |
:mega: Codecov can now indicate which changes are the most critical in Pull Requests. Learn more
This seems to improve performance pretty significantly compared to main:
| | 0 | 1
| -- | -- | --
| -- main metrics -- | |
| CPU time elapsed | 0m47s | 0m39s 83%
| Wall time elapsed | 0m47s | 0m39s 83%
| TZ-transactions per sec | 253.723 | 304.650 120%
| TZ-operations per sec | 2632.493 | 3160.876 120%
| Context.set per sec | 19018.674 | 22836.024 120%
| tail latency (1) | 0.954 s | 0.723 s 76%
| | |
| -- resource usage -- | |
| disk IO (total) | |
| IOPS (op/sec) | 43_802 | 52_314 119%
| throughput (bytes/sec) | 4.954 M | 5.937 M 120%
| total (bytes) | 0.233 G | 0.233 G 100%
| disk IO (read) | |
| IOPS (op/sec) | 42_364 | 50_587 119%
| throughput (bytes/sec) | 2.097 M | 2.505 M 119%
| total (bytes) | 0.099 G | 0.098 G 99%
| disk IO (write) | |
| IOPS (op/sec) | 1_438 | 1_727 120%
| throughput (bytes/sec) | 2.857 M | 3.432 M 120%
| total (bytes) | 0.135 G | 0.135 G 100%
| | |
| max memory usage | 0.561 G | 0.561 G 100%
| mean CPU usage | 100% | 100%
Full comparison: stepmap.log
Nice! That looks promising! I'm running a lib_context benchmark for this PR to see how it performs in that context.
The results of running the lib_context benchmark is less conclusive, in particular I'm looking at the increased tail latency. I'll run another one to see if it is a consistent result.
| | base | stepmap
| -- | -- | --
| -- main metrics -- | |
| CPU time elapsed | 192m21s | 189m07s 98%
| Wall time elapsed | 231m55s | 228m33s 99%
| TZ-transactions per sec | 1370.961 | 1394.399 102%
| TZ-operations per sec | 2241.601 | 2279.923 102%
| Context.add per sec | 18272.123 | 18584.501 102%
| tail latency (1) | 0.640 s | 0.946 s 148%
| | |
| -- resource usage -- | |
| disk IO (total) | |
| IOPS (op/sec) | 246_585 | 250_802 102%
| throughput (bytes/sec) | 18.820 M | 19.142 M 102%
| total (bytes) | 217.206 G | 217.207 G 100%
| disk IO (read) | |
| IOPS (op/sec) | 246_510 | 250_726 102%
| throughput (bytes/sec) | 13.870 M | 14.107 M 102%
| total (bytes) | 160.071 G | 160.073 G 100%
| disk IO (write) | |
| IOPS (op/sec) | 76 | 77 102%
| throughput (bytes/sec) | 4.950 M | 5.035 M 102%
| total (bytes) | 57.134 G | 57.135 G 100%
| | |
| max memory usage (bytes) | 0.577 G | 0.565 G 98%
| mean CPU usage | 83% | 83%
The lib-context code might need a similar update to the one I've done for the schema changes (to stop sorting the list of children with a weird and useless ordering)
A second run (b) brought this branch more in line with main for tail latency (which is good to see!). I can also run another one with an updated schema to see what change that might have.
| | base | a | b
| -- | -- | -- | --
| -- main metrics -- | | |
| CPU time elapsed | 192m46s | 189m07s 98% | 190m26s 99%
| Wall time elapsed | 232m39s | 228m33s 98% | 230m19s 99%
| TZ-transactions per sec | 1368.073 | 1394.399 102% | 1384.737 101%
| TZ-operations per sec | 2236.879 | 2279.923 102% | 2264.125 101%
| Context.add per sec | 18233.635 | 18584.501 102% | 18455.726 101%
| tail latency (1) | 0.695 s | 0.946 s 136% | 0.673 s 97%
| | | |
| -- resource usage -- | | |
| disk IO (total) | | |
| IOPS (op/sec) | 246_068 | 250_802 102% | 249_068 101%
| throughput (bytes/sec) | 18.781 M | 19.142 M 102% | 19.010 M 101%
| total (bytes) | 217.208 G | 217.207 G 100% | 217.210 G 100%
| disk IO (read) | | |
| IOPS (op/sec) | 245_993 | 250_726 102% | 248_992 101%
| throughput (bytes/sec) | 13.840 M | 14.107 M 102% | 14.009 M 101%
| total (bytes) | 160.073 G | 160.073 G 100% | 160.075 G 100%
| disk IO (write) | | |
| IOPS (op/sec) | 75 | 77 102% | 76 101%
| throughput (bytes/sec) | 4.940 M | 5.035 M 102% | 5.000 M 101%
| total (bytes) | 57.135 G | 57.135 G 100% | 57.135 G 100%
| | | |
| max memory usage (bytes) | 0.576 G | 0.565 G 98% | 0.584 G 101%
| mean CPU usage | 83% | 83% | 83%
Here is one run of tezos patched with https://github.com/mirage/irmin/pull/2014 and this PR. Higher tail latency again, but results mostly seem inconclusive to me. Full Summary
| | main_220810 | stepmap | stepmap_tezos_order
| -- | -- | -- | --
| -- main metrics -- | | |
| CPU time elapsed | 192m46s | 190m26s 99% | 191m09s 99%
| Wall time elapsed | 232m39s | 230m19s 99% | 231m01s 99%
| TZ-transactions per sec | 1368.073 | 1384.737 101% | 1379.620 101%
| TZ-operations per sec | 2236.879 | 2264.125 101% | 2255.758 101%
| Context.add per sec | 18233.635 | 18455.726 101% | 18387.522 101%
| tail latency (1) | 0.695 s | 0.673 s 97% | 0.853 s 123%
| | | |
| -- resource usage -- | | |
| disk IO (total) | | |
| IOPS (op/sec) | 246_068 | 249_068 101% | 248_146 101%
| throughput (bytes/sec) | 18.781 M | 19.010 M 101% | 18.939 M 101%
| total (bytes) | 217.208 G | 217.210 G 100% | 217.208 G 100%
| disk IO (read) | | |
| IOPS (op/sec) | 245_993 | 248_992 101% | 248_070 101%
| throughput (bytes/sec) | 13.840 M | 14.009 M 101% | 13.957 M 101%
| total (bytes) | 160.073 G | 160.075 G 100% | 160.074 G 100%
| disk IO (write) | | |
| IOPS (op/sec) | 75 | 76 101% | 76 101%
| throughput (bytes/sec) | 4.940 M | 5.000 M 101% | 4.982 M 101%
| total (bytes) | 57.135 G | 57.135 G 100% | 57.134 G 100%
| | | |
| max memory usage (bytes) | 0.576 G | 0.584 G 101% | 0.561 G 97%
| mean CPU usage | 83% | 83% | 83%
I'm surprised that this PR doesn't have a bigger effect on allocated words:
| | | total | avg per block
| gc.minor_words allocated | main_220810 | 2356.498 G | 16.252 M
| | stepmap | 2334.767 G 99% | 16.102 M 99%
| | stepmap_tezos_order | 2328.504 G 99% | 16.059 M 99%
| gc.major_words allocated | main_220810 | 205.634 G | 1.418 M
| | stepmap | 201.136 G 98% | 1.387 M 98%
| | stepmap_tezos_order | 201.135 G 98% | 1.387 M 98%
Maybe Craig's Small_list on https://gitlab.com/tezos/tezos/-/merge_requests/3526 could help, but I'm not even sure.
