Can I configure the amount of memory available to all HAWQ segment instances and the amount of memory available for each segment?
This is covered in the system requirements.
In Apache Hawq, virtual segments are used as containers of the executors. As a result, the memory used by queries is controlled by the number of virtual segments.
You can use GUC hawq_rm_memory_limit_perseg to control the total memory size of each host(segment instance) and to control the memory size of a virtual segment, you can create your own resqueue with specified memsize for each container(256M as default).
The virtual segment memory usage is set by hawq_rm_stmt_vseg_memory, which calculates the total memory for all forked QE. Since different query statements may resides on the same vseg, so hawq_rm_stmt_vseg_memory will be shared across different queries.
hawq_rm_stmt_vseg_memory is the memory quota(size) of one virtual segment, the default value is 128mb. That means, the memory size of one virtual segment is 128mb, one query may request many virtual segments.
#Wen Lin, you mentioned "one query may request many virtual segments", so one virtual segment is also shared by many queries, right? Then all shared queries will share the memory quota, which is 128mb by default?
#ztao, virtual segments are not shared by queries. For one query, it asks virtual segments from RM, and return virtual segments to RM when it finishes.
Related
The following excerpt from The Definitive Guide provides high level details as shown below but
what exactly is virtual memory is referring to in this task counter?
How to interpret it? How is it related to PHYSICAL_MEMORY_BYTES?
Following is an example extract from one of the jobs. Physical is 214 GB approx. and virtual is 611 GB approx.
1.What exactly is virtual memory is referring to in this task counter?
Virtual Memory here is used to prevent Out of Memory errors of a task,if data size doesn't fits in RAM(physical mem).
in RAM.So a portion of memory of size what didn't fit in RAM will be used as Virtual Memory.
So,while setting up hadoop cluster one is advised to have the value of vm.swappiness =1 to achieve better performance. On linux systems, vm.swappiness is set to 60 by default.
Higher the value more aggresive swapping of memory pages.
https://community.hortonworks.com/articles/33522/swappiness-setting-recommendation.html
2. How to interpret it? How is it related to PHYSICAL_MEMORY_BYTES?
swapping of memory pages from physical memory to virtual memory on disk when not enough phy mem
This is the relation between PHYSICAL_MEMORY_BYTES and VIRTUAL_MEMORY_BYTES.
This is my first post. I want to ask about how are virtual memory related to paging and segmentation. I am searching internet for few days, but still can't manage to put that information into right order. Here is what I know so far:
We can talk about addresses (we could say they are levels of memory abstraction) in memory:
physical level (CPU talking to memory controller, "hey give me contents of address 0xFFEABCD", these adresses are adresses of cells in RAM, so cell 0xABCD has physical address 0xABCD. memory controller can only use physical adresses, so if adress is not physical it must be changed to physical.
logical level.This is abstraction over physical addresses. Here processes if ask for memory, (assume successfull allocation) are given address which has no direct relation to cells in RAM. We can say these addresses are from different pool (world?) than physical addresses. As I said before memory controller only understand physical adresses, so to use logical addresses, we need to convert them to physical addresses. There are two ways for OS to be able to create logical adresses:
paging - in which physical memory (RAM) is divided into continous blocks of memory (called frames), and logical memory (this other world) is also divided in same in length blocks (called pages). Now OS keep in RAM data structure called page table. It's an associative array (map) and it's primary goal of existence is to translate logical level addresses to physical level adresses. Paging has following effect: memory allocated by process in RAM (so in frames in physical memory belonging to program) may not be in contingous manner (so there may be holes inside).
segmentation - program is divided into parts called segments. Segments sizes are not fixed, so different segments may have different sizes. Program is divided in few segments and each segment will have its own place in RAM (physical) memory. So one segment (call it sementA), and another (call it segmentB) may not be near each other. In other words segmentA don't have to has segmentB as a neighbour.
internal fragmentation - when memory which belongs to process isn't used in 100%. So if process want to have 2 bytes for its use, OS need to allocate page/pages which total size need to be greater or equal than amount of memory requested by program. Typical size of page is 4KB. Unit in which OS gives memory to process are pages. So it can't give less than 4KB. So if we use 2 bytes, 4KB - 2B = 4094 bytes are wasted (memory is associated with our process so other processes can't use it. Only we can use it, but we only need 2B).
external fragmentation - when allocated blocks of memory are one near another, but there is a little hole between them. Its free, so other programs, can use it, but it is unlikly because it is very small. That holes with high probability will be wasted. More holes - more wasted memory.
Paging may cause effect of internal fragmentation. Segmentation may cause effect of external fragmentation.
virtual level - addresses used in virtual memory. This is extension of logical memory level. Now program don't even need to have all of it's allocated pages in RAM to start execution. It can be implemented with following techniques:
paged segmentation - method in which segments are divided into pages.
segmented paging - less used method but also possible.
Combining them takes a positive aspects from both solutions.
What i have read about pros and cons of virtual memory:
PROS:
processes have their own address space which mean if we have two processes A and B, and both of them have a pointer to address eg. 17 processA pointer will be showing to different frame than pointer in processB. this results in greater process isolation. Processes are protected from each other (so one process can't do things with another process memory if it isn't shared memory because in its mapping don't exist such mapping entry), and OS is more protected from processes.
have more memory than you physical first order memory(RAM, due to swapping to secondary order memory).
better use of memory due to:
swapping unused parts of programs to secondary memory.
making sharings pages possible, also make possible "copy on write".
improved multiprogram capability (when not needed parts of programs are swapped out to secondary memory, they made free space in ram which could be used for new procesess.)
improved CPU utilisation (if you can have more processes loaded into memory you have bigger probability than there exist some program that now need do CPU stuff, not IO stuff. In such cases you can better utilise CPU).
CONS:
virtual memory has it's overhead because we need to get access to memory twice (but here a lot of improvment can be achieved using TLB buffers)
it makes OS part managing memory more complicated.
So here we came to parts which I don't really understand:
Why in some sources logical address and virtual addresses are described as synonymes? Do I get something wrong?
Is really virtual memory making protection to processes? I mean, in segmentation for example there was also check if process do not acces other memory (resulting in segfault if it does), paging also has a protection bit in a page table, so doesn't the protection come from simply extending abstraction of logic level addresses? If VM (Virtual Memory) brings extended protection features, what are they and how they work? In other words: does creating separate address space for each process, bring extended memory protection. If so, what can't be achieved is paging without VM?
How really differ paged segmentation from segmented paging. I know that the difference between these two will be how a address is constructed (a page number, segment number, that stuff..), but I suppose it isn't enough to develop 2 strategies. This reason is like nothing. I read that segmented paging is less elastic, and that's the reason why it is rarely used. But why it it less elastic? Is the reason for that, that in program you can have only few segments instead a lot of pages. If thats the case paging indeed allow better "granularity".
If VM make separate address space for each process, does it mean, paging without VM use logic addresses from "one pool" (is then every logic address globally unique in that case?).
Any help on that topic would be appreciated.
Edit: #1
Ok. I finally understood that paging not on demand is also a virtual memory. I just found some clarification was helpful to understand the topic. Below is link to image which I made to visualize differences. Thanks for help.
differences between paging, demand paging and swapping
Why in some sources logical address and virtual addresses are described as synonymes? Do I get something wrong?
Many sources conflate logical and virtual memory translation. In ye olde days, logical address translation never took place without virtual address translation so processor documentation referred to them as the same.
Now we have large memory systems that use logical memory translation without virtual memory.
Is really virtual memory making protection to processes?
It is the logical memory translation that implements page protections.
How really differ paged segmentation from segmented paging.
You can really ignore segments. No rationally designed processor architecture designed after 1970 used segments and they are finally dying out.
If VM make separate address space for each process, does it mean, paging without VM use logic addresses from "one pool"
It is logical memory that creates the separate address space for each process. Paging is virtual memory. You cannot have one without the other.
According to the GreenPlum documentation, GUCs such as statement_mem, gp_vmem_protect_limit should work at segment level. Same thing should happen with a resource queue memory allowance.
On our system we have 8 primary segments per node. So if I set the statement_mem of a query to 2GB I would expect the query to consume (if needed) up to 2GB x 8 = 16GBs of RAM. But it seems that it would only use 2GBs total per node before starting to write into disk (that's it 2GB/8 per segment). I tried with different statement_values and same thing.
max_statement_mem or gp_vmem_protect_limit limits are never reached. RAM usage on nodes have been monitored using various tools (from GP command center to top, free, all the way across Pivotal suggested session_level_memory_consumption view).
EDITED FROM HERE
ADDED two documentation sources where statement_mem is defined per segment and not per host. (#Jon Roberts)
On the GP best practices guide, beginning of page 32, it clearly says that if the statement_mem is 125MB and we have 8 segments on the server, each query will get 1GB allocated per server.
https://www.google.es/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0ahUKEwi6sOTx8O3KAhVBKg4KHTwICX0QFggmMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fgpdb.docs.pivotal.io%2F4300%2Fpdf%2FGPDB43BestPractices.pdf&usg=AFQjCNGkTqa6143fvJUztYISWAiVyj62dA&sig2=D2ZcJwLDqN0qBzU73NjXNg&bvm=bv.113943164,d.ZWU&cad=rja
On the https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/201947018-Pivotal-Greenplum-GPDB-Memory-Configuration it seems to use statement_mem as segment memory and not host memory. It keeps interrelating statement_mem with the memory limit of the resource queues as well as with the gp_vmem_protect_limit (both parameters defined per segment basis).
This is why I'm getting confused about how to properly manage the memory resources.
Thanks
I incorrectly stated that statement_mem is on a per host and that is not the case. This link is talking about the memory on a segment level:
http://gpdb.docs.pivotal.io/4370/guc_config-statement_mem.html#statement_mem
With the default of "eager_free" gp_resqueue_memory_policy, memory gets re-used so the aggregate amount of memory used may look low for a particular query execution. If you change it to "auto" where the memory isn't re-used, the memory usage is more noticeable.
Run an "explain analyze" of your query and see the slices that are used. With eager_free, the memory gets re-used so you may only have a single slice wanting more memory than available such as this one:
(slice18) * Executor memory: 10399K bytes avg x 2 workers, 10399K bytes max (seg0). Work_mem: 8192K bytes max, 13088K bytes wanted.
And for your question on how to manage the resources, most people don't change the default values. A query that spills to disk is usually an indication that the query needs to be revised or the data model needs some work.
Assume I have a machine with 256gb memory and 12TB SSD. Indexed document size is 100TB. I assign 30.5 GB to Elasticsearch heap. The remaining is for Lucene and OS.
My question is, how much virtual memory does Elasticsearch support? To put it in another way, how many indexed documents can I put into the virtual memory for each machine?
Thanks
The amount of virtual memory ES can use is defined by the value of the vm.max_map_count setting in /etc/sysctl.conf. By default it is set at 262144, but you can change this value using:
sysctl -w vm.max_map_count=262144
From the linux documentation:
This file contains the maximum number of memory map areas a process
may have. Memory map areas are used as a side-effect of calling
malloc, directly by mmap and mprotect, and also when loading shared
libraries.
While most applications need less than a thousand maps, certain
programs, particularly malloc debuggers, may consume lots of them,
e.g., up to one or two maps per allocation.
The default value is 65536.
So this setting doesn't impose a specific size available to ES/Lucene, but a number of discrete memory areas that a given process can use. How much memory is used exactly will depend on the size of the memory chunks being allocated by ES/Lucene. By default, Lucene uses
1<<30 = 1,073,741,824 ~= 1GB chunks on a 64 bit JRE and
1<<28 = 268,435,456 ~= 256MB chunks on 32 bit JRE
So if you do the math, the default value of vm.max_map_count is probably good enough for your case, if not you can tune it and monitor your virtual memory usage.
Generally as we know virtual memory is larger than physical memory.But when is it advantageous to define virtual memory smaller than physical memory?
If you have pointer-heavy code, you can save memory by choosing a smaller address space. For example, a pointer on a 32-bit platform occupies 4 bytes versus 8 bytes on 64-bit. The same goes for integer types like size_t.
This only works and makes sense if:
Your code/application/server uses multiple processes and all processes together need more memory than the amount of virtual memory (otherwise you wouldn't need more physical than virtual memory).
Your platform supports more physical than virtual memory (for example, Intel PAE).
The smaller amount of virtual memory is enough for each single process.
Imagine a large server system supporting multiple users. You don't want users to hog memory, so you restrict the size of the logical (virtual) address space by limiting page table size.