Summary:
add option `block_protection_bytes_per_key` and implementation for block per key-value checksum. The main changes are
1. checksum construction and verification in block.cc/h
2. pass the option `block_protection_bytes_per_key` around (mainly for methods defined in table_cache.h)
3. unit tests/crash test updates
Tests:
* Added unit tests
* Crash test: `python3 tools/db_crashtest.py blackbox --simple --block_protection_bytes_per_key=1 --write_buffer_size=1048576`
Follow up (maybe as a separate PR): make sure corruption status returned from BlockIters are correctly handled.
Performance:
Turning on block per KV protection has a non-trivial negative impact on read performance and costs additional memory.
For memory, each block includes additional 24 bytes for checksum-related states beside checksum itself. For CPU, I set up a DB of size ~1.2GB with 5M keys (32 bytes key and 200 bytes value) which compacts to ~5 SST files (target file size 256 MB) in L6 without compression. I tested readrandom performance with various block cache size (to mimic various cache hit rates):
```
SETUP
make OPTIMIZE_LEVEL="-O3" USE_LTO=1 DEBUG_LEVEL=0 -j32 db_bench
./db_bench -benchmarks=fillseq,compact0,waitforcompaction,compact,waitforcompaction -write_buffer_size=33554432 -level_compaction_dynamic_level_bytes=true -max_background_jobs=8 -target_file_size_base=268435456 --num=5000000 --key_size=32 --value_size=200 --compression_type=none
BENCHMARK
./db_bench --use_existing_db -benchmarks=readtocache,readrandom[-X10] --num=5000000 --key_size=32 --disable_auto_compactions --reads=1000000 --block_protection_bytes_per_key=[0|1] --cache_size=$CACHESIZE
The readrandom ops/sec looks like the following:
Block cache size: 2GB 1.2GB * 0.9 1.2GB * 0.8 1.2GB * 0.5 8MB
Main 240805 223604 198176 161653 139040
PR prot_bytes=0 238691 226693 200127 161082 141153
PR prot_bytes=1 214983 193199 178532 137013 108211
prot_bytes=1 vs -10% -15% -10.8% -15% -23%
prot_bytes=0
```
The benchmark has a lot of variance, but there was a 5% to 25% regression in this benchmark with different cache hit rates.
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/11287
Reviewed By: ajkr
Differential Revision: D43970708
Pulled By: cbi42
fbshipit-source-id: ef98d898b71779846fa74212b9ec9e08b7183940
Summary:
This PR does the following:
- Fix compilation and linking errors when building fuzzer
- Add the above to CircleCI
- Update documentation
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/9420
Test Plan: CI
Reviewed By: jay-zhuang
Differential Revision: D33849452
Pulled By: riversand963
fbshipit-source-id: 0794e5d04a3f53bfd2216fe2b3cd827ca2083ac3
Summary:
As title.
This is part of an fb-internal task.
First, remove all `using namespace` statements if applicable.
Next, utilize multiple build platforms and see if anything is broken.
Should anything become broken, fix the compilation errors with as little extra change as possible.
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/9369
Test Plan:
internal build and make check
make clean && make static_lib && cd examples && make all
Reviewed By: pdillinger
Differential Revision: D33517260
Pulled By: riversand963
fbshipit-source-id: 3fc4ce6402a073421dfd9a9b2d1c79441dca7a40
Summary:
Removed the uses of the Legacy FileWrapper classes from the source code. The wrappers were creating an additional layer of indirection/wrapping, as the Env already has a FileSystem.
Moved the Custom FileWrapper classes into the CustomEnv, as these classes are really for the private use the the CustomEnv class.
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/7851
Reviewed By: anand1976
Differential Revision: D26114816
Pulled By: mrambacher
fbshipit-source-id: db32840e58d969d3a0fa6c25aaf13d6dcdc74150
Summary:
This is the initial PR to support adding fuzz tests to RocksDB.
It includes the necessary build infrastructure, and includes an example fuzzer.
There is also a README serving as the tutorial for how to add more tests.
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/7685
Test Plan: Manually build and run the fuzz test according to README.
Reviewed By: pdillinger
Differential Revision: D25013847
Pulled By: cheng-chang
fbshipit-source-id: c91e3b337398d7f4d8f769fd5091cd080487b171
