Add concurrency to the find-large-objects scrubber subcommand #8291
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
30 tasks
skyzh
reviewed
Jul 5, 2024
3042 tests run: 2927 passed, 0 failed, 115 skipped (full report)Code coverage* (full report)
* collected from Rust tests only The comment gets automatically updated with the latest test results
9c5e2f3 at 2024-07-05T20:22:56.387Z :recycle: |
The atomic wasn't required after all
|
created a tracking issue for test lsn lease flaky: #8293 |
they are not needed
VladLazar
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 8, 2024
The find-large-objects scrubber subcommand is quite fast if you run it in an environment with low latency to the S3 bucket (say an EC2 instance in the same region). However, the higher the latency gets, the slower the command becomes. Therefore, add a concurrency param and make it parallelized. This doesn't change that general relationship, but at least lets us do multiple requests in parallel and therefore hopefully faster. Running with concurrency of 64 (default): ``` 2024-07-05T17:30:22.882959Z INFO lazy_load_identity [...] [...] 2024-07-05T17:30:28.289853Z INFO Scanned 500 shards. [...] ``` With concurrency of 1, simulating state before this PR: ``` 2024-07-05T17:31:43.375153Z INFO lazy_load_identity [...] [...] 2024-07-05T17:33:51.987092Z INFO Scanned 500 shards. [...] ``` In other words, to list 500 shards, speed is increased from 2:08 minutes to 6 seconds. Follow-up of #8257, part of #5431
VladLazar
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 8, 2024
The find-large-objects scrubber subcommand is quite fast if you run it in an environment with low latency to the S3 bucket (say an EC2 instance in the same region). However, the higher the latency gets, the slower the command becomes. Therefore, add a concurrency param and make it parallelized. This doesn't change that general relationship, but at least lets us do multiple requests in parallel and therefore hopefully faster. Running with concurrency of 64 (default): ``` 2024-07-05T17:30:22.882959Z INFO lazy_load_identity [...] [...] 2024-07-05T17:30:28.289853Z INFO Scanned 500 shards. [...] ``` With concurrency of 1, simulating state before this PR: ``` 2024-07-05T17:31:43.375153Z INFO lazy_load_identity [...] [...] 2024-07-05T17:33:51.987092Z INFO Scanned 500 shards. [...] ``` In other words, to list 500 shards, speed is increased from 2:08 minutes to 6 seconds. Follow-up of #8257, part of #5431
VladLazar
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 8, 2024
The find-large-objects scrubber subcommand is quite fast if you run it in an environment with low latency to the S3 bucket (say an EC2 instance in the same region). However, the higher the latency gets, the slower the command becomes. Therefore, add a concurrency param and make it parallelized. This doesn't change that general relationship, but at least lets us do multiple requests in parallel and therefore hopefully faster. Running with concurrency of 64 (default): ``` 2024-07-05T17:30:22.882959Z INFO lazy_load_identity [...] [...] 2024-07-05T17:30:28.289853Z INFO Scanned 500 shards. [...] ``` With concurrency of 1, simulating state before this PR: ``` 2024-07-05T17:31:43.375153Z INFO lazy_load_identity [...] [...] 2024-07-05T17:33:51.987092Z INFO Scanned 500 shards. [...] ``` In other words, to list 500 shards, speed is increased from 2:08 minutes to 6 seconds. Follow-up of #8257, part of #5431
VladLazar
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 8, 2024
The find-large-objects scrubber subcommand is quite fast if you run it in an environment with low latency to the S3 bucket (say an EC2 instance in the same region). However, the higher the latency gets, the slower the command becomes. Therefore, add a concurrency param and make it parallelized. This doesn't change that general relationship, but at least lets us do multiple requests in parallel and therefore hopefully faster. Running with concurrency of 64 (default): ``` 2024-07-05T17:30:22.882959Z INFO lazy_load_identity [...] [...] 2024-07-05T17:30:28.289853Z INFO Scanned 500 shards. [...] ``` With concurrency of 1, simulating state before this PR: ``` 2024-07-05T17:31:43.375153Z INFO lazy_load_identity [...] [...] 2024-07-05T17:33:51.987092Z INFO Scanned 500 shards. [...] ``` In other words, to list 500 shards, speed is increased from 2:08 minutes to 6 seconds. Follow-up of #8257, part of #5431
VladLazar
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 8, 2024
The find-large-objects scrubber subcommand is quite fast if you run it in an environment with low latency to the S3 bucket (say an EC2 instance in the same region). However, the higher the latency gets, the slower the command becomes. Therefore, add a concurrency param and make it parallelized. This doesn't change that general relationship, but at least lets us do multiple requests in parallel and therefore hopefully faster. Running with concurrency of 64 (default): ``` 2024-07-05T17:30:22.882959Z INFO lazy_load_identity [...] [...] 2024-07-05T17:30:28.289853Z INFO Scanned 500 shards. [...] ``` With concurrency of 1, simulating state before this PR: ``` 2024-07-05T17:31:43.375153Z INFO lazy_load_identity [...] [...] 2024-07-05T17:33:51.987092Z INFO Scanned 500 shards. [...] ``` In other words, to list 500 shards, speed is increased from 2:08 minutes to 6 seconds. Follow-up of #8257, part of #5431
VladLazar
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 8, 2024
The find-large-objects scrubber subcommand is quite fast if you run it in an environment with low latency to the S3 bucket (say an EC2 instance in the same region). However, the higher the latency gets, the slower the command becomes. Therefore, add a concurrency param and make it parallelized. This doesn't change that general relationship, but at least lets us do multiple requests in parallel and therefore hopefully faster. Running with concurrency of 64 (default): ``` 2024-07-05T17:30:22.882959Z INFO lazy_load_identity [...] [...] 2024-07-05T17:30:28.289853Z INFO Scanned 500 shards. [...] ``` With concurrency of 1, simulating state before this PR: ``` 2024-07-05T17:31:43.375153Z INFO lazy_load_identity [...] [...] 2024-07-05T17:33:51.987092Z INFO Scanned 500 shards. [...] ``` In other words, to list 500 shards, speed is increased from 2:08 minutes to 6 seconds. Follow-up of #8257, part of #5431
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The find-large-objects scrubber subcommand is quite fast if you run it in an environment with low latency to the S3 bucket (say an EC2 instance in the same region). However, the higher the latency gets, the slower the command becomes. Therefore, add a concurrency param and make it parallelized. This doesn't change that general relationship, but at least lets us do multiple requests in parallel and therefore hopefully faster.
Running with concurrency of 64 (default):
With concurrency of 1, simulating state before this PR:
In other words, to list 500 shards, speed is increased from 2:08 minutes to 6 seconds.
Follow-up of #8257, part of #5431