For Multiple Azure Table Storage Accounts , how to achieve over 20,000+ requests per second for insert and query? I.E for every storage account add 20,000 rps to a query RRS feed

  • Question

  • I am wondering how to achieve over 20,0000 requests per second on Azure storage accounts. I understand that data needs to be separated into multiple storage accounts in order to surpass those limits however I am unable to achieve this with current code. I have achieved around 20,000 requests per second with an individual account but my performance doesn't improve (usually decreases) when adding multiple storage accounts.

    Some info on how data is stored in the storage accounts and code in background:

    1.there is one table per storage account

    2.each table is partitioned by the first three hash of their id(I have played around with higher and lower)

    3.each partition contains about 15 records

    4.each storage account contains the exact same data (this is for test purposes)

    5.there are currently 3 storage accounts

    1. (50,000 records takes 2 minutes and 16 seconds to retrieve)

    7.Im also using servicepointmanager with 100 default connection and naggle off.

    Here is some sample code for a large query

     public void retrievePartitionList<T1>(List<T1> entityList)
    where T1 : ITableEntity, new()
            int queryCountMax = 100; //Needed at 100 not to exceed uri Limits
            var partitionGroup = entityList.GroupBy(m => m.PartitionKey);
            List<TableQuery<T1>> queryList = new List<TableQuery<T1>>();
            List<Task<TableQuerySegment<T1>>> taskList = new List<Task<TableQuerySegment<T1>>>();
            //I have three storage accounts Im retrieving from. Ideally want 20k+ throughput for each storage account added
            var cloudTable2 = getTableClientForTenant(2);
            var cloudTable3 = getTableClientForTenant(3);
            var tenTenTable2 = cloudTable2.GetTableReference(BATableStorageContainerPrefixes.tableStorage + 1.ToString());
            var tenTable3 = cloudTable3.GetTableReference(BATableStorageContainerPrefixes.tableStorage + 1.ToString());
            foreach (var partition in partitionGroup)
                string rowFilters = "";
                var partitionList = partition.ToList();
                var partitionFilter = TableQuery.GenerateFilterCondition(TableConstants.PartitionKey, QueryComparisons.Equal, partition.Key);
                for (var i = 0; i < partitionList.Count; i++)
                    var item = partitionList[i];
                    if (string.IsNullOrEmpty(rowFilters))
                        rowFilters = TableQuery.GenerateFilterCondition(TableConstants.RowKey, QueryComparisons.Equal, item.RowKey);
                        var newFilter = "(" + TableQuery.GenerateFilterCondition(TableConstants.RowKey, QueryComparisons.Equal, item.RowKey) + ")";
                        rowFilters += " or " + newFilter;
                    if ((i + 1) % queryCountMax == 0 || i == partitionList.Count - 1)
                        rowFilters = TableQuery.CombineFilters(partitionFilter, TableOperators.And, rowFilters);
                        TableQuery<T1> innerQuery = new TableQuery<T1>().Where(rowFilters);
                        innerQuery.TakeCount = TableConstants.TableServiceMaxResults;
                        var random = new Random();
                        //Randomly seperate task to different storage accounts
                        //Once again, each storage account contains the same complete data set so no matter where they go they should return the correct results
                        var tenantTask = tenantTable.ExecuteQuerySegmentedAsync(innerQuery, null);
                        var randomNum = random.Next(100);
                        if (randomNum < 33)
                            tenantTask = tenTenTable2.ExecuteQuerySegmentedAsync(innerQuery, null);
                            //Debug.WriteLine("second tenant");
                        else if(randomNum < 66)
                            //Debug.WriteLine("first tenant");
                            tenantTask = tenTable3.ExecuteQuerySegmentedAsync(innerQuery, null);
                        rowFilters = "";
            List<T1> finalResults = new List<T1>();
            //I have messed around with parallelism and 8 is usually the best for the machine I'm on
            Parallel.ForEach(taskList, new ParallelOptions { MaxDegreeOfParallelism = 8 }, task =>
                var results = Task.WhenAll(task).Result;
                lock (finalResults)
                    foreach (var item in results)
           Debug.WriteLine(finalResults.Count()); //Just to show count of results received

    So what I'm looking for is something that will add about 20,000 request throughput for each storage account added. I have tried running the on a S2 azure web app with 10 instances but came back with poor results. about 2 minutes and 16 seconds fro 50,000 records When knowing all the partition keys and rowids.

    To further explain the situation:

    The table entity being inserted is rather small.

    It only has a:

    1.rowid which is a int 

    2.partition key is 3 char hash of the int

    3.one property that is always the same a 10 digit int

    Tuesday, February 13, 2018 3:56 PM


  • Hey Manbrew, 

    We discussed this scenario internally, and it doesn't seem that the issue is caused by the storage accounts nor the limits. Here are some suggestion which were provided: 

    1- Increase the thread pools: (if 8 threads are used per node, then, at most 80 simultaneous requests outstanding, which would mean each request would need to complete in less than 4 ms (80 outstanding requests / 20,000 RPS  = .004 sec/request
    2- Increase connection point limits, check the following discussion3- route the requests to different partitions, each partition could go up to 2,000 RPS , if several requests are going to one, you may hit the limits.
    4- Suggestion to try increasing the web app nodes for the app, if testing the throughput doubles, then most likely it could be a client config issue not on the storage side. 

    • Proposed as answer by Adam Smith (Azure) Thursday, February 15, 2018 4:32 PM
    • Marked as answer by Manbrew Saturday, February 17, 2018 4:32 PM
    Thursday, February 15, 2018 4:32 PM