I'd like to discuss the creation of a macro-benchmarking module for Flink.
This could be run during pre-release testing to detect performance regressions and during development when refactoring or performance tuning code on the hot path. Many users have published benchmarks and the Flink libraries already contain a modest selection of algorithms. Some benefits of creating a consolidated collection of macro-benchmarks include: - comprehensive code coverage: a diverse set of algorithms can stress every aspect of Flink (streaming, batch, sorts, joins, spilling, cluster, ...) - codify best practices: benchmarks should be relatively stable and repeatable - efficient: an automated system can run many more tests and generate more accurate results Macro-benchmarks would be useful in analyzing improved performance with the proposed specialized serializes and comparators [FLINK-3599] or making Flink NUMA-aware [FLINK-3163]. I've also been looking recently at some of the hot code and see about a ~12-14% total improvement when modifying NormalizedKeySorter.compare/swap to bitshift and bitmask rather than divide and modulo. The trade-off is that to align on a power-of-2 we have holes in and require additional MemoryBuffers. And I'm testing on a single data type, IntValue, and there may be different results for LongValue or StringValue or custom types or with different algorithms. And replacing multiply with a left shift reduces performance, demonstrating the need to test changes in isolation. There are many more ideas, i.e. NormalizedKeySorter writing keys before the pointer so that the offset computation is performed outside of the compare and sort methods. Also, SpanningRecordSerializer could skip to the next buffer rather than writing length across buffers. These changes might each be worth a few percent. Other changes might be less than a 1% speedup, but taken in aggregate will yield a noticeable performance increase. I like the idea of profile first, measure second, then create and discuss the pull request. As for the actual macro-benchmarking framework, it would be nice if the algorithms would also verify correctness alongside performance. The algorithm interface would be warmup (run only once) and execute, which would be run multiple times in an interleaved manner. There benchmarking duration should be tunable. The framework would be responsible for configuration of as well as starting and stopping the cluster, executing algorithms and recording performance, and comparing and analyzing results. Greg |
Hi Greg,
I like the idea to have a macro-benchmarking suite to exactly test the points you've mentioned. If we don't have reliable performance numbers, then it will always be hard to tell whether an improvement makes sense or not (performance-wise). I think we already undertook a first attempt to do solve the problem with Yoka [1]. The idea was to run a set of algorithms continuously on a machine in the cloud. Yoka was running for some time, but I'm not sure whether this is still the case. Another tool I know of and which people use to run benchmark suites with Flink is Peel [2]. Researcher of Dima are using it to benchmark different distributed engines against each other. But I have never really worked with it. [1] https://github.com/mxm/yoka [2] https://github.com/stratosphere/peel Cheers, Till On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 6:56 PM, Greg Hogan <[hidden email]> wrote: > I'd like to discuss the creation of a macro-benchmarking module for Flink. > This could be run during pre-release testing to detect performance > regressions and during development when refactoring or performance tuning > code on the hot path. > > Many users have published benchmarks and the Flink libraries already > contain a modest selection of algorithms. Some benefits of creating a > consolidated collection of macro-benchmarks include: > > - comprehensive code coverage: a diverse set of algorithms can stress every > aspect of Flink (streaming, batch, sorts, joins, spilling, cluster, ...) > > - codify best practices: benchmarks should be relatively stable and > repeatable > > - efficient: an automated system can run many more tests and generate more > accurate results > > Macro-benchmarks would be useful in analyzing improved performance with the > proposed specialized serializes and comparators [FLINK-3599] or making > Flink NUMA-aware [FLINK-3163]. > > I've also been looking recently at some of the hot code and see about a > ~12-14% total improvement when modifying NormalizedKeySorter.compare/swap > to bitshift and bitmask rather than divide and modulo. The trade-off is > that to align on a power-of-2 we have holes in and require additional > MemoryBuffers. And I'm testing on a single data type, IntValue, and there > may be different results for LongValue or StringValue or custom types or > with different algorithms. And replacing multiply with a left shift reduces > performance, demonstrating the need to test changes in isolation. > > There are many more ideas, i.e. NormalizedKeySorter writing keys before the > pointer so that the offset computation is performed outside of the compare > and sort methods. Also, SpanningRecordSerializer could skip to the next > buffer rather than writing length across buffers. These changes might each > be worth a few percent. Other changes might be less than a 1% speedup, but > taken in aggregate will yield a noticeable performance increase. > > I like the idea of profile first, measure second, then create and discuss > the pull request. > > As for the actual macro-benchmarking framework, it would be nice if the > algorithms would also verify correctness alongside performance. The > algorithm interface would be warmup (run only once) and execute, which > would be run multiple times in an interleaved manner. There benchmarking > duration should be tunable. > > The framework would be responsible for configuration of as well as starting > and stopping the cluster, executing algorithms and recording performance, > and comparing and analyzing results. > > Greg > |
Hi Greg,
I just pushed v1.0.0-rc2 for Peel to Sonatype. As Till said, we are using the framework extensively at the TU for benchmarking and comparing different systems (mostly Flink and Spark). We recently used Peel to conduct some experiments for FLINK-2237. If you want to learn more about the framework, I suggest to read the repeatability section of our blog post draft [2] on the subject, as well as the Peel manual [3]. We also have a Google Group [4] and an Issue tracker [5] in case you want to use or contribute to the project. [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-2237 [2] https://docs.google.com/document/d/12yx7olVrkooceaQPoR1nkk468lIq0xOObY5ukWuNEcM/edit#heading=h.w1uw5kmqciq7 [3] http://peel-framework.org [4] https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/peel-framework [5] https://github.com/stratosphere/peel/issues Regards, A. 2016-04-07 10:48 GMT+02:00 Till Rohrmann <[hidden email]>: > Hi Greg, > > I like the idea to have a macro-benchmarking suite to exactly test the > points you've mentioned. If we don't have reliable performance numbers, > then it will always be hard to tell whether an improvement makes sense or > not (performance-wise). > > I think we already undertook a first attempt to do solve the problem with > Yoka [1]. The idea was to run a set of algorithms continuously on a machine > in the cloud. Yoka was running for some time, but I'm not sure whether this > is still the case. > > Another tool I know of and which people use to run benchmark suites with > Flink is Peel [2]. Researcher of Dima are using it to benchmark different > distributed engines against each other. But I have never really worked with > it. > > [1] https://github.com/mxm/yoka > [2] https://github.com/stratosphere/peel > > Cheers, > Till > > On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 6:56 PM, Greg Hogan <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > I'd like to discuss the creation of a macro-benchmarking module for > Flink. > > This could be run during pre-release testing to detect performance > > regressions and during development when refactoring or performance tuning > > code on the hot path. > > > > Many users have published benchmarks and the Flink libraries already > > contain a modest selection of algorithms. Some benefits of creating a > > consolidated collection of macro-benchmarks include: > > > > - comprehensive code coverage: a diverse set of algorithms can stress > every > > aspect of Flink (streaming, batch, sorts, joins, spilling, cluster, ...) > > > > - codify best practices: benchmarks should be relatively stable and > > repeatable > > > > - efficient: an automated system can run many more tests and generate > more > > accurate results > > > > Macro-benchmarks would be useful in analyzing improved performance with > the > > proposed specialized serializes and comparators [FLINK-3599] or making > > Flink NUMA-aware [FLINK-3163]. > > > > I've also been looking recently at some of the hot code and see about a > > ~12-14% total improvement when modifying NormalizedKeySorter.compare/swap > > to bitshift and bitmask rather than divide and modulo. The trade-off is > > that to align on a power-of-2 we have holes in and require additional > > MemoryBuffers. And I'm testing on a single data type, IntValue, and there > > may be different results for LongValue or StringValue or custom types or > > with different algorithms. And replacing multiply with a left shift > reduces > > performance, demonstrating the need to test changes in isolation. > > > > There are many more ideas, i.e. NormalizedKeySorter writing keys before > the > > pointer so that the offset computation is performed outside of the > compare > > and sort methods. Also, SpanningRecordSerializer could skip to the next > > buffer rather than writing length across buffers. These changes might > each > > be worth a few percent. Other changes might be less than a 1% speedup, > but > > taken in aggregate will yield a noticeable performance increase. > > > > I like the idea of profile first, measure second, then create and discuss > > the pull request. > > > > As for the actual macro-benchmarking framework, it would be nice if the > > algorithms would also verify correctness alongside performance. The > > algorithm interface would be warmup (run only once) and execute, which > > would be run multiple times in an interleaved manner. There benchmarking > > duration should be tunable. > > > > The framework would be responsible for configuration of as well as > starting > > and stopping the cluster, executing algorithms and recording performance, > > and comparing and analyzing results. > > > > Greg > > > |
In reply to this post by Greg Hogan
Hello,
I think that creating a macro-benchmarking module would be a very good idea. It would make doing performance-related changes much easier and safer. I have also used Peel, and can confirm that it would be a good fit for this task. > I've also been looking recently at some of the hot code and see about a > ~12-14% total improvement when modifying NormalizedKeySorter.compare/swap > to bitshift and bitmask rather than divide and modulo. The trade-off is > that to align on a power-of-2 we have holes in and require additional > MemoryBuffers. I've also noticed the performance problem that those divisons in NormalizedKeySorter.compare/swap cause, and have an idea about eliminating them without the aligning to power-of-2 trade-off. I've opened a Jira [1], where I explain it. Best, Gábor [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-3722 2016-04-06 18:56 GMT+02:00 Greg Hogan <[hidden email]>: > I'd like to discuss the creation of a macro-benchmarking module for Flink. > This could be run during pre-release testing to detect performance > regressions and during development when refactoring or performance tuning > code on the hot path. > > Many users have published benchmarks and the Flink libraries already > contain a modest selection of algorithms. Some benefits of creating a > consolidated collection of macro-benchmarks include: > > - comprehensive code coverage: a diverse set of algorithms can stress every > aspect of Flink (streaming, batch, sorts, joins, spilling, cluster, ...) > > - codify best practices: benchmarks should be relatively stable and > repeatable > > - efficient: an automated system can run many more tests and generate more > accurate results > > Macro-benchmarks would be useful in analyzing improved performance with the > proposed specialized serializes and comparators [FLINK-3599] or making > Flink NUMA-aware [FLINK-3163]. > > I've also been looking recently at some of the hot code and see about a > ~12-14% total improvement when modifying NormalizedKeySorter.compare/swap > to bitshift and bitmask rather than divide and modulo. The trade-off is > that to align on a power-of-2 we have holes in and require additional > MemoryBuffers. And I'm testing on a single data type, IntValue, and there > may be different results for LongValue or StringValue or custom types or > with different algorithms. And replacing multiply with a left shift reduces > performance, demonstrating the need to test changes in isolation. > > There are many more ideas, i.e. NormalizedKeySorter writing keys before the > pointer so that the offset computation is performed outside of the compare > and sort methods. Also, SpanningRecordSerializer could skip to the next > buffer rather than writing length across buffers. These changes might each > be worth a few percent. Other changes might be less than a 1% speedup, but > taken in aggregate will yield a noticeable performance increase. > > I like the idea of profile first, measure second, then create and discuss > the pull request. > > As for the actual macro-benchmarking framework, it would be nice if the > algorithms would also verify correctness alongside performance. The > algorithm interface would be warmup (run only once) and execute, which > would be run multiple times in an interleaved manner. There benchmarking > duration should be tunable. > > The framework would be responsible for configuration of as well as starting > and stopping the cluster, executing algorithms and recording performance, > and comparing and analyzing results. > > Greg |
Hi Greg!
The idea is very good, especially having these pre-built performance tests for release testing. In your opinion, are the tests going to be self-contained, or will they need a cluster (YARN, Mesos, Docker, etc.) to bring up a Flink cluster and run things? Greetings, Stephan On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 12:41 PM, Gábor Gévay <[hidden email]> wrote: > Hello, > > I think that creating a macro-benchmarking module would be a very good > idea. It would make doing performance-related changes much easier and > safer. > > I have also used Peel, and can confirm that it would be a good fit for > this task. > > > I've also been looking recently at some of the hot code and see about a > > ~12-14% total improvement when modifying NormalizedKeySorter.compare/swap > > to bitshift and bitmask rather than divide and modulo. The trade-off is > > that to align on a power-of-2 we have holes in and require additional > > MemoryBuffers. > > I've also noticed the performance problem that those divisons in > NormalizedKeySorter.compare/swap cause, and have an idea about > eliminating them without the aligning to power-of-2 trade-off. I've > opened a Jira [1], where I explain it. > > Best, > Gábor > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-3722 > > > > > 2016-04-06 18:56 GMT+02:00 Greg Hogan <[hidden email]>: > > I'd like to discuss the creation of a macro-benchmarking module for > Flink. > > This could be run during pre-release testing to detect performance > > regressions and during development when refactoring or performance tuning > > code on the hot path. > > > > Many users have published benchmarks and the Flink libraries already > > contain a modest selection of algorithms. Some benefits of creating a > > consolidated collection of macro-benchmarks include: > > > > - comprehensive code coverage: a diverse set of algorithms can stress > every > > aspect of Flink (streaming, batch, sorts, joins, spilling, cluster, ...) > > > > - codify best practices: benchmarks should be relatively stable and > > repeatable > > > > - efficient: an automated system can run many more tests and generate > more > > accurate results > > > > Macro-benchmarks would be useful in analyzing improved performance with > the > > proposed specialized serializes and comparators [FLINK-3599] or making > > Flink NUMA-aware [FLINK-3163]. > > > > I've also been looking recently at some of the hot code and see about a > > ~12-14% total improvement when modifying NormalizedKeySorter.compare/swap > > to bitshift and bitmask rather than divide and modulo. The trade-off is > > that to align on a power-of-2 we have holes in and require additional > > MemoryBuffers. And I'm testing on a single data type, IntValue, and there > > may be different results for LongValue or StringValue or custom types or > > with different algorithms. And replacing multiply with a left shift > reduces > > performance, demonstrating the need to test changes in isolation. > > > > There are many more ideas, i.e. NormalizedKeySorter writing keys before > the > > pointer so that the offset computation is performed outside of the > compare > > and sort methods. Also, SpanningRecordSerializer could skip to the next > > buffer rather than writing length across buffers. These changes might > each > > be worth a few percent. Other changes might be less than a 1% speedup, > but > > taken in aggregate will yield a noticeable performance increase. > > > > I like the idea of profile first, measure second, then create and discuss > > the pull request. > > > > As for the actual macro-benchmarking framework, it would be nice if the > > algorithms would also verify correctness alongside performance. The > > algorithm interface would be warmup (run only once) and execute, which > > would be run multiple times in an interleaved manner. There benchmarking > > duration should be tunable. > > > > The framework would be responsible for configuration of as well as > starting > > and stopping the cluster, executing algorithms and recording performance, > > and comparing and analyzing results. > > > > Greg > |
Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |