@@ -2698,3 +2698,142 @@ TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
2698
2698
2699
2699
2700
2700
2701
+ From
[email protected] Fri Nov 15 11:25:58 2002
2702
+
2703
+ Received: from postgresql.org (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8])
2704
+ by candle.pha.pa.us (8.11.6/8.10.1) with ESMTP id gAFHPvR10276
2705
+ for <
[email protected] >; Fri, 15 Nov 2002 12:25:57 -0500 (EST)
2706
+ Received: from localhost (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8])
2707
+ by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
2708
+ id A2D5A4774A1; Fri, 15 Nov 2002 11:34:54 -0500 (EST)
2709
+ Received: from postgresql.org (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8])
2710
+ by postgresql.org (Postfix) with SMTP
2711
+ id 5E898477132; Fri, 15 Nov 2002 11:15:45 -0500 (EST)
2712
+ Received: from localhost (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8])
2713
+ by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90CF1475B85
2714
+ for <
[email protected] >; Mon, 11 Nov 2002 15:33:47 -0500 (EST)
2715
+ Received: from Curtis-Vaio (unknown [63.164.0.45])
2716
+ by postgresql.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C6CB1475A3F
2717
+ for <
[email protected] >; Mon, 11 Nov 2002 15:33:46 -0500 (EST)
2718
+ Received: from [127.0.0.1] by Curtis-Vaio
2719
+ (ArGoSoft Mail Server Freeware, Version 1.8 (1.8.1.7)); Mon, 11 Nov 2002 16:33:42 -0400
2720
+ From: "Curtis Faith" <
[email protected] >
2721
+
2722
+ Subject: [HACKERS] 500 tpsQL + WAL log implementation
2723
+ Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 16:33:41 -0400
2724
+
2725
+ MIME-Version: 1.0
2726
+ Content-Type: text/plain;
2727
+ charset="iso-8859-1"
2728
+ Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
2729
+ X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
2730
+ X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
2731
+ X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0)
2732
+ X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6700
2733
+ Importance: Normal
2734
+ X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS new-20020517
2735
+ Precedence: bulk
2736
+
2737
+ X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS new-20020517
2738
+ Status: ORr
2739
+
2740
+ I have been experimenting with empirical tests of file system and device
2741
+ level writes to determine the actual constraints in order to speed up the WAL
2742
+ logging code.
2743
+
2744
+ Using a raw file partition and a time-based technique for determining the
2745
+ optimal write position, I am able to get 8K writes physically written to disk
2746
+ synchronously in the range of 500 to 650 writes per second using FreeBSD raw
2747
+ device partitions on IDE disks (with write cache disabled). I will be
2748
+ testing it soon under linux with 10,00RPM SCSI which should be even better.
2749
+ It is my belief that the mechanism used to achieve these speeds could be
2750
+ incorporated into the existing WAL logging code as an abstraction that looks
2751
+ to the WAL code just like the file level access currently used. The current
2752
+ speeds are limited by the speed of a single disk rotation. For a 7,200 RPM
2753
+ disk this is 120/second, for a 10,000 RPM disk this is 166.66/second
2754
+
2755
+ The mechanism works by adjusting the seek offset of the write by using
2756
+ gettimeofday to determine approximately where the disk head is in its
2757
+ rotation. The mechanism does not use any AIO calls.
2758
+
2759
+ Assuming the following:
2760
+
2761
+ 1) Disk rotation time is 8.333ms or 8333us (7200 RPM).
2762
+
2763
+ 2) A write at offset 1,500K completes at system time 103s 000ms 000us
2764
+
2765
+ 3) A new write is requested at system time 103s 004ms 166us
2766
+
2767
+ 4) A 390K per rotation alignment of the data on the disk.
2768
+
2769
+ 5) A write must be sent at least 20K ahead of the current head position to
2770
+ ensure that it is written in less than one rotation.
2771
+
2772
+ It can be determined from the above that a write for an offset of something
2773
+ slightly more than 195K past the last write, or offset 1,695K will be ahead
2774
+ of the current location of the head and will therefore complete in less than
2775
+ a single rotation's time.
2776
+
2777
+ The disk specific metrics (rotation speed, bytes per rotation, base write
2778
+ time, etc.) can be derived empirically through a tester program that would
2779
+ take a few minutes to run and which could be run at log setup time.
2780
+
2781
+ The obvious problem with the above mechanism is that the WAL log needs to be
2782
+ able to read from the log file in transaction order during recovery. This
2783
+ could be provided for using an abstraction that prepends the logical order
2784
+ for each block written to the disk and makes sure that the log blocks contain
2785
+ either a valid logical order number or some other marker indicating that the
2786
+ block is not being used.
2787
+
2788
+ A bitmap of blocks that have already been used would be kept in memory for
2789
+ quickly determining the next set of possible unused blocks but this bitmap
2790
+ would not need to be written to disk except during normal shutdown since in
2791
+ the even of a failure the bitmaps would be reconstructed by reading all the
2792
+ blocks from the disk.
2793
+
2794
+ Checkpointing and something akin to log rotation could be handled using this
2795
+ mechanism as well.
2796
+
2797
+ So, MY REAL QUESTION is whether or not this is the sort of speed improvement
2798
+ that warrants the work of writing the required abstraction layer and making
2799
+ this very robust. The WAL code should remain essentially unchanged, with
2800
+ perhaps new calls for the five or six routines used to access the log files,
2801
+ and handle the equivalent of log rotation for raw device access. These new
2802
+ calls would either use the current file based implementation or the new
2803
+ logging mechanism depending on the configuration.
2804
+
2805
+ I anticipate that the extra work required for a PostgreSQL administrator to
2806
+ use the proposed logging mechanism would be to:
2807
+
2808
+ 1) Create a raw device partition of the appropriate size
2809
+ 2) Run the metrics tester for that device partition
2810
+ 3) Set the appropriate configuration parameters to indicate raw WAL logging
2811
+
2812
+ I anticipate that the additional space requirements for this system would be
2813
+ on the order of 10% to 15% beyond the current file-based implementation's
2814
+ requirements.
2815
+
2816
+ So, is this worth doing? Would a robust implementation likely be accepted for
2817
+ 7.4 assuming it can demonstrate speed improvements in the range of 500tps?
2818
+
2819
+ - Curtis
2820
+
2821
+
2822
+
2823
+
2824
+
2825
+
2826
+
2827
+
2828
+
2829
+
2830
+
2831
+
2832
+
2833
+
2834
+
2835
+
2836
+
2837
+ ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
2838
+ TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to
[email protected]
2839
+
0 commit comments