When calling AddFast, we check the details of the head chunk of the
referred memorySeries. But it could happen that there are no chunks in
the series at all.
Currently, we are deferring chunk creation to when we actually append
samples, but we can be sure that there will be samples if the series is
created. We will be consuming no extra memory by cutting a chunk when we
create the series.
Ref: #28 comment 2
Signed-off-by: Goutham Veeramachaneni <cs14btech11014@iith.ac.in>
Sadly, we have a number of places where we use varint encoding for
numbers that cannot be negative. We could have saved a bit by using
uvarint encoding. On the bright side, we now have a 50% chance to
detect data corruption. :-/
Fixes#1800 and #2492.
This parallelizes commits to prevent deadlocks across inconsistently
locked heads. As commits are currently not fully atomic across
heads, this does decrease our guarantees.
This is in line with the v1.5 change in paradigm to not keep
chunk.Descs without chunks around after a series maintenance.
It's mainly motivated by avoiding excessive amounts of RAM usage
during crash recovery.
The code avoids to create memory time series with zero chunk.Descs as
that is prone to trigger weird effects. (Series maintenance would
archive series with zero chunk.Descs, but we cannot do that here
because the archive indices still have to be checked.)
The fpIter was kind of cumbersome to use and required a lock for each
iteration (which wasn't even needed for the iteration at startup after
loading the checkpoint).
The new implementation here has an obvious penalty in memory, but it's
only 8 byte per series, so 80MiB for a beefy server with 10M memory
time series (which would probably need ~100GiB RAM, so the memory
penalty is only 0.1% of the total memory need).
The big advantage is that now series maintenance happens in order,
which leads to the time between two maintenances of the same series
being less random. Ideally, after each maintenance, the next
maintenance would tackle the series with the largest number of
non-persisted chunks. That would be quite an effort to find out or
track, but with the approach here, the next maintenance will tackle
the series whose previous maintenance is longest ago, which is a good
approximation.
While this commit won't change the _average_ number of chunks
persisted per maintenance, it will reduce the mean time a given chunk
has to wait for its persistence and thus reduce the steady-state
number of chunks waiting for persistence.
Also, the map iteration in Go is non-deterministic but not truly
random. In practice, the iteration appears to be somewhat "bucketed".
You can often observe a bunch of series with similar duration since
their last maintenance, i.e. you see batches of series with similar
number of chunks persisted per maintenance. If that batch is
relatively young, a whole lot of series are maintained with very few
chunks to persist. (See screenshot in PR for a better explanation.)
In case the execution of all rules takes longer than the configured rule
evaluation interval, one or more iterations will be skipped. This needs
to be visible to the opterator.
