[Kde-pim] Review Request: Add indexing throttling and fixed endless indexing problems
Sebastian Trueg
strueg at mandriva.com
Sun Feb 26 11:33:49 GMT 2012
Since I am unable to reproduce this slow query - it seems that I am
missing data which results in such a query - could you please:
* apply the attached patch to kde-runtime/nepomuk/services/backupsync (-p3)
* shutdown akonadi and nepomuk, remove the nepomuk db (or move it to a
backup location)
* start the storage service manually: "nepomukservicestub nepomukstorage
2> /tmp/mytmpfile"
* start akonadi, let it finish its indexing, even if Virtuoso goes wild
* finally get the hardest query via: "grep XXXXX /tmp/mytmpfile|sed
"s/.*XXXXX //g"|sort -n|uniq|tail -20".
Thanks for the help.
Cheers,
Sebastian
On 02/22/2012 05:48 PM, Volker Krause wrote:
> Here we go:
>
> Connected to OpenLink Virtuoso
> Driver: 06.01.3127 OpenLink Virtuoso ODBC Driver
> OpenLink Interactive SQL (Virtuoso), version 0.9849b.
> Type HELP; for help and EXIT; to exit.
> SQL> status();
> REPORT
> VARCHAR
> _______________________________________________________________________________
>
> OpenLink Virtuoso Server
> Version 06.01.3127-pthreads for Linux as of ??? ?? ????
> Started on: 2012/02/20 14:34 GMT+60
> Lite Mode
>
> Database Status:
> File size 1344274432, 164096 pages, 53194 free.
> 400 buffers, 400 used, 1 dirty 1 wired down, repl age 125 0 w. io 1 w/crsr.
> Disk Usage: 1114387496 reads avg 0 msec, 0% r 0% w last 0 s, 8976288
> writes,
> 537880 read ahead, batch = 6. Autocompact 64288 in 40567 out, 36% saved.
> Gate: 770368 2nd in reads, 0 gate write waits, 0 in while read 0 busy scrap.
> Log =
> /home/vkrause/.kde/share/apps/nepomuk/repository/main/data/virtuosobackend/soprano-
> virtuoso.trx, 87 bytes
> 110879 pages have been changed since last backup (in checkpoint state)
> Current backup timestamp: 0x0000-0x00-0x00
> Last backup date: unknown
> Clients: 610 connects, max 38 concurrent
> RPC: 23159320 calls, -630 pending, 4 max until now, 0 queued, 2790 burst reads
> (0%), 15 second brk=18624512
> Checkpoint Remap 0 pages, 0 mapped back. 2383 s atomic time.
> DB master 164096 total 53194 free 0 remap 0 mapped back
> temp 256 total 249 free
>
> Lock Status: 0 deadlocks of which 0 2r1w, 71 waits,
> Currently 2 threads running 0 threads waiting 0 threads in vdb.
> Pending:
>
> Client 1111:1:-48: Account: dba, 415702328 bytes in, 240297225 bytes out, 0
> stmts.
> PID: 24734, OS: unix, Application: unknown, IP#: 127.0.0.1
> Transaction status: PENDING, 0 threads.
> Locks:
>
> Client 1111:1:-43: Account: dba, 296436892 bytes in, 173661376 bytes out, 1
> stmts.
> PID: 24734, OS: unix, Application: unknown, IP#: 127.0.0.1
> Transaction status: PENDING, 1 threads.
> Locks:
>
> Client 1111:1:-46: Account: dba, 292329482 bytes in, 179137713 bytes out, 0
> stmts.
> PID: 24734, OS: unix, Application: unknown, IP#: 127.0.0.1
> Transaction status: PENDING, 0 threads.
> Locks:
>
> Client 1111:1:-17: Account: dba, 335589080 bytes in, 192090303 bytes out, 0
> stmts.
> PID: 24734, OS: unix, Application: unknown, IP#: 127.0.0.1
> Transaction status: PENDING, 0 threads.
> Locks:
>
> Client 1111:1:-240: Account: dba, 10656 bytes in, 189180 bytes out, 0 stmts.
> PID: 24734, OS: unix, Application: unknown, IP#: 127.0.0.1
> Transaction status: PENDING, 0 threads.
> Locks:
>
> Client 1111:1:-41: Account: dba, 1552 bytes in, 938 bytes out, 0 stmts.
> PID: 24734, OS: unix, Application: unknown, IP#: 127.0.0.1
> Transaction status: PENDING, 0 threads.
> Locks:
>
> Client 1111:1:-579: Account: dba, 120819 bytes in, 273415 bytes out, 0 stmts.
> PID: 24734, OS: unix, Application: unknown, IP#: 127.0.0.1
> Transaction status: PENDING, 0 threads.
> Locks:
>
> Client 1111:1:-13: Account: dba, 419207763 bytes in, 243086156 bytes out, 0
> stmts.
> PID: 24734, OS: unix, Application: unknown, IP#: 127.0.0.1
> Transaction status: PENDING, 0 threads.
> Locks:
>
> Client 1111:1:-2: Account: dba, 78053 bytes in, 3394883 bytes out, 0 stmts.
> PID: 24734, OS: unix, Application: unknown, IP#: 127.0.0.1
> Transaction status: PENDING, 0 threads.
> Locks:
>
> Client 1111:1:-69: Account: dba, 2564 bytes in, 80545 bytes out, 0 stmts.
> PID: 24734, OS: unix, Application: unknown, IP#: 127.0.0.1
> Transaction status: PENDING, 0 threads.
> Locks:
>
> Client 1111:610: Account: dba, 204 bytes in, 255 bytes out, 1 stmts.
> PID: 14404, OS: unix, Application: unknown, IP#: 127.0.0.1
> Transaction status: PENDING, 1 threads.
> Locks:
>
> Client 1111:1:-594: Account: dba, 339712 bytes in, 584087 bytes out, 0 stmts.
> PID: 24734, OS: unix, Application: unknown, IP#: 127.0.0.1
> Transaction status: PENDING, 0 threads.
> Locks:
>
> Client 1111:1:-44: Account: dba, 424311940 bytes in, 250861715 bytes out, 0
> stmts.
> PID: 24734, OS: unix, Application: unknown, IP#: 127.0.0.1
> Transaction status: PENDING, 0 threads.
> Locks:
>
> Client 1111:1:-65: Account: dba, 5613 bytes in, 687096 bytes out, 0 stmts.
> PID: 24734, OS: unix, Application: unknown, IP#: 127.0.0.1
> Transaction status: PENDING, 0 threads.
> Locks:
>
> Client 1111:1:-29: Account: dba, 7329 bytes in, 108643 bytes out, 0 stmts.
> PID: 24734, OS: unix, Application: unknown, IP#: 127.0.0.1
> Transaction status: PENDING, 0 threads.
> Locks:
>
> Client 1111:1:-22: Account: dba, 28081 bytes in, 9393 bytes out, 0 stmts.
> PID: 24734, OS: unix, Application: unknown, IP#: 127.0.0.1
> Transaction status: PENDING, 0 threads.
> Locks:
>
> Client 1111:1:-470: Account: dba, 3257767 bytes in, 6410521 bytes out, 0
> stmts.
> PID: 24734, OS: unix, Application: unknown, IP#: 127.0.0.1
> Transaction status: PENDING, 0 threads.
> Locks:
>
> Client 1111:1:-12: Account: dba, 323006521 bytes in, 181981840 bytes out, 0
> stmts.
> PID: 24734, OS: unix, Application: unknown, IP#: 127.0.0.1
> Transaction status: PENDING, 0 threads.
> Locks:
>
> Client 1111:1:-81: Account: dba, 30386 bytes in, 401979 bytes out, 0 stmts.
> PID: 24734, OS: unix, Application: unknown, IP#: 127.0.0.1
> Transaction status: PENDING, 0 threads.
> Locks:
>
> Client 1111:1:-47: Account: dba, 398031874 bytes in, 233688412 bytes out, 0
> stmts.
> PID: 24734, OS: unix, Application: unknown, IP#: 127.0.0.1
> Transaction status: PENDING, 0 threads.
> Locks:
>
> Client 1111:1:-45: Account: dba, 254603133 bytes in, 144263381 bytes out, 0
> stmts.
> PID: 24734, OS: unix, Application: unknown, IP#: 127.0.0.1
> Transaction status: PENDING, 0 threads.
> Locks:
>
> Client 1111:1:-23: Account: dba, 372153873 bytes in, 224998663 bytes out, 0
> stmts.
> PID: 24734, OS: unix, Application: unknown, IP#: 127.0.0.1
> Transaction status: PENDING, 0 threads.
> Locks:
>
> Client 1111:1:-68: Account: dba, 10462 bytes in, 149481 bytes out, 0 stmts.
> PID: 24734, OS: unix, Application: unknown, IP#: 127.0.0.1
> Transaction status: PENDING, 0 threads.
> Locks:
>
> Client 1111:1:-253: Account: dba, 14802 bytes in, 1564724 bytes out, 0 stmts.
> PID: 24734, OS: unix, Application: unknown, IP#: 127.0.0.1
> Transaction status: PENDING, 0 threads.
> Locks:
>
> Client 1111:1:-67: Account: dba, 10881 bytes in, 169263 bytes out, 0 stmts.
> PID: 24734, OS: unix, Application: unknown, IP#: 127.0.0.1
> Transaction status: PENDING, 0 threads.
> Locks:
>
>
> Running Statements:
> Time (msec) Text
> 96 status()
> 2177514 sparql select distinct ?r count(?p) as ?cnt where { ?r ?p ?o.
> filter( ?p in (<ht
>
>
> Hash indexes
>
>
> 159 Rows. -- 97 msec.
>
>
>
> On Monday 20 February 2012 17:34:27 Sebastian Trüg wrote:
>> Please reproduce the high load, then start
>> isql localhost:1111 dba dba
>> and run "status();"
>> and tell me the running queries.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Sebastian
>>
>> On 02/20/2012 11:44 AM, Christian Mollekopf wrote:
>>> On Friday 17 February 2012 19.53:42 Volker Krause wrote:
>>>> On Friday 17 February 2012 09:00:19 Sebastian Trueg wrote:
>>>>>> On Feb. 16, 2012, 7:45 p.m., Christian Mollekopf wrote:
>>>>>>> The HighPrio Queue shouldn't ever be throttled ideally, but in view of
>>>>>>> the current problems it's definitely a reasonable approach. I didn't
>>>>>>> give a close look yet, but you can ship it from my side. Thanks for
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> patch.
>>>>> Currently there is no way around throttling the high prio queue. As
>>>>> stated
>>>>> above (and as you confirmed in private email) adding a new email account
>>>>> will result in newItem events for all the emails. That in turn will put
>>>>> them into the high prio queue.
>>>> I'm currently testing this, and it indeed seems to improve indexing
>>>> considerably. Without throttling in effect my system is now reliably
>>>> indexing hundreds of mails per minute, without getting stuck with
>>>> Virtuoso
>>>> going crazy.
>>> It also goes for me a lot faster, it seems it's not the merging which was
>>> the bottleneck after all. Not sure why it goes so much faster now though.>
>>>> I (locally) reduced the idle time limit a bit though, with the new two
>>>> minute setting it rarely switches to full speed here, maybe something we
>>>> still want to tweak.
>>> Feel free to do so once that is committed.
>>>
>>>> I get a lot of these errors now though: "nepomukservicestub(24734)"
>>>> Soprano: "Invalid argument (1)":
>>>> "http://www.semanticdesktop.org/ontologies/2007/03/22/nmo#messageHeader
>>>> has
>>>> a max cardinality of 1. Provided 2 values -
>>>> <nepomuk:/res/dfc71807-249b-47e4-91c1-90e3bd940f4d>,
>>>> <nepomuk:/res/93266175- f423-481b-a371-2b6ed28c5dbb>. Existing - "
>>>>
>>>> This seems to be caused by emails with more than one extra header we
>>>> index
>>>> (such as List-Id), and thus triggers on basically everything in my
>>>> mailinglist folders. Affected emails are skipped and re-indexed at an
>>>> agent
>>>> restart (which of course fails again). Is nmo:messageHeader the right
>>>> property for these headers, and if yes, why does it have cardinality one?
>>> I'm running into those too, I'll have a look at it. This might be related
>>> to a bug in the merger (will have to check again). I reduced the batch
>>> size to 1, in order to minimize this problem. Once that is working we
>>> probably want to increase the size again for performance reasons, which
>>> will of course affect the system load again (nepomuk will i.e. get 100
>>> items at a time instead of just one.)
>>>
>>> Otherwise I think we can commit that to master. I can backport it later
>>> when I have my other fixes in.
>>>
>>> Sebastian, can you commit this to master? Or do you want me to do it?
>>>
>>> I think I still have to store the already indexed collections in the
>>> config, because right now, if the initial indexing hasn't finished and
>>> the computer is rebooted it will still start over, meaning it will query
>>> for the existence of all items again. If that is fast enough that won't
>>> be a problem of course.
>>>
>>> The removal of items seems to be broken right now too, that's not related
>>> to the patch though.
>>>
>>> Also I'm still not sure that this is the actual cause the virtuoso going
>>> crazy bug, but in either case a very good improvement.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Christian
>>>
>>>> regards,
>>>> Volker
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> KDE PIM mailing list kde-pim at kde.org
>>>> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-pim
>>>> KDE PIM home page at http://pim.kde.org/
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: 1.diff
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-pim/attachments/20120226/ca914e1c/attachment.ksh>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
KDE PIM mailing list kde-pim at kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-pim
KDE PIM home page at http://pim.kde.org/
More information about the kde-pim
mailing list