[erlang-questions] Problems Writing a Scalable Shared Data Structure

Hynek Vychodil <>
Mon Jul 7 11:30:18 CEST 2008


I peeped to your code briefly and it looks good. It can be wrote little
simpler but looks correct for this proof purpose. Just to be sure, did you
tried to start erl with different number of  schedulers e.g. +S parameter or
only changed number of client threads?

I also think, your tree is may be too small.

2008/7/7 Fuad Tabba <>:

> Hi,
>
> A while back I posted a question asking how to write a scalable shared data
> structure in Erlang; it can be anything really but I decided to go with a
> binary search tree (bst) since it's a simple data structure that should
> scale well with load (as long as it's balanced).
>
> Anyway, I finished writing the code, which I'm assuming (read: hoping) is
> correct. :) What I found though is that it's not scaling at all. By that I
> mean that as the number of threads/processes accessing the bst increases,
> throughput doesn't improve by as much.
>
> I've implemented the nodes as processes, and all operations on the tree are
> relayed to the node that needs to do something about it. The code for this
> implementation can be found here:-
> http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~fuad/cbst.erl<http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/%7Efuad/cbst.erl>
>
> I did my tests on a Sun Fire V880 with 8 900-MHz UltraSPARC-III processors
> and 16 GBs of main memory; running Solaris 10 and Erlang (BEAM) 5.6.3.
>
> My tests consisted of randomly creating and populating a tree that has a
> key range of 0-1000; and then performing at random (uniform distribution)
> either an insert(), delete() or a contains() done 100,000 times. I would
> vary the number of threads from 1 to 8, and the load (100,000 operations)
> would be divided by the number of processors available. I also performed the
> tests where the only operation performed is a contains() operation
> (designated by 1:0:0), or 8 contains() operations, 1 insert() and 1 delete()
> (8:1:1), or an equal mix of all three (1:1:1).
>
> In a perfect world, 2 threads would do the job in half the time 1 thread
> would, but of course nothing is perfect. So as a baseline I performed
> another test whereby each thread would just call a function (repeated for a
> number of times) that does nothing but return true, to see how well that
> scales (in the graph: Best Scalability). This used the same functions to
> distribute the load, except that randOperation() would only return true
> rather than do anything useful.
>
> Anyway, you can find the graph (where the results are normalized to the
> wall time for one processor) at:-
> http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~fuad/bst-scale.png<http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/%7Efuad/bst-scale.png>(the lower the lines goes, better the scalability)
>
> and the raw data (showing the wall time in ms) at:-
> http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~fuad/bst-scale.csv<http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/%7Efuad/bst-scale.csv>
>
>
> As you can see, my data structure isn't scaling well at all regardless of
> the kind of workload it has. I would expect it to scale well since the tree
> should be kind of balanced. In C I would know how to write an implementation
> where at least contains() scales well; writing something where tree
> modification scales is a bit more difficult but should be doable. However, I
> am new to Erlang and I can't really reason about all the issues well enough
> to pull off a similar implementation.
>
> In a nutshell my question is; what am I doing wrong? Is there a better way
> to have a place that stores shared data in a scalable manner?
>
> Thanks,
> /Fuad
> _______________________________________________
> erlang-questions mailing list
> 
> http://www.erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
>



-- 
--Hynek (Pichi) Vychodil
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/attachments/20080707/8e7016be/attachment.html>


More information about the erlang-questions mailing list