fix: improve memory usage on NVD update #6321
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Signed-off-by: Marcos Romero <marcos.romero@mercadoderecebiveis.com.br>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Fixes Issue
Fix high memory usage when updating NVD database.
Before:
After:
Description of Change
Just moved BufferedInputStream to wrap GzipInputStream and not the other way around.
Test description
I did not test this extensively. I lost some hours finding a way to run this, so sorry if I did not do this as it should.
--purgeand other with--updateonly--updateonlyafter database is purgedHow I got to that point of error?
On
NvdApiDatasource, I saw that there were two ExecutorServices when using Datafeed, so first I limited Download to 1 thread and saw no difference in memory usage and then I limitedprocessingExecutorServiceto 1 and saw a huge difference.Further improvements
I believe first gunzipping to a temporary file and reading from it would save a lot of memory. Because GzipInputStream has an internal buffer, as Gzip decompression works in blocks, and JSON usually has a high compression rate (around 80 to 95% in some cases, but in this case I saw around 90%), there is a lot of gunzipped content in memory probably. Not sure if BufferedInputStream is enough though, so I did not bother to test that.
Have test cases been added to cover the new functionality?
No