Re: PG on NFS may be just a bad idea
Re: PG on NFS may be just a bad idea
От:
Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
Дата:
On Mon, 2007-10-01 at 10:13 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > > Maybe we need to actively discourage people from running Postgres > > against NFS-mounted data directories. Shane Kerr's paper cited above > > mentions some other rather scary properties, including O_EXCL file > > creation not really working properly. > > Wouldn't you be describing a Linux-specific issue, though? And possibly > kernel-specific? Possibly, though if you have any specific refutations of the Kerr paper then it would be a good idea to air them. It isn't enough to just hint some exist. > It's hard to reconcile this with the real-world performance of > PostgreSQL on NFS, which is happening all over the place. Most notably, > Joe Conway's 20,000 txn/sec. > > I *do* think it's an accurate statement that if you're going to use > Postgres, or any other OLTP database, on NFS you'd better have access to > a NAS expert. But to say that it's a bad idea even if you have expert > help is probably going to far. I can see many papers on database performance on NFS, but I don't see any discussion of potential reliability concerns. If anybody sits near an NAS expert, it would be great to have that discussion. I have found some comments that other databases require "specific configuration settings to ensure efficient and correct usage" of NFS "to access NAS storage devices". -- Simon Riggs 2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
Re: PG on NFS may be just a bad idea
От:
Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
Дата:
On Mon, 2007-10-01 at 19:36 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: > > I *do* think it's an accurate statement that if you're going to use > > Postgres, or any other OLTP database, on NFS you'd better have access to > > a NAS expert. But to say that it's a bad idea even if you have expert > > help is probably going to far. > > I can see many papers on database performance on NFS, but I don't see > any discussion of potential reliability concerns. If anybody sits near > an NAS expert, it would be great to have that discussion. http://blogs.netapp.com/dave/2007/08/oracle-optimize.html -- Simon Riggs 2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
Re: PG on NFS may be just a bad idea
От:
Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com>
Дата:
On Mon, 2007-10-08 at 16:50 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > palloc uses malloc underneath. My thought is to replace that with > sbrk, mmap or something like that. Not very portable though, a lot of > work, and most likely not nearly enough benefits. Yeah, I agree this isn't likely to be a win in the general case. However, it would be interesting to explore a specialized allocator for short-lived memory contexts, where we don't care about having an effective pfree(). If the context is going to be reset or deleted shortly anyway, we could probably optimize and simplify palloc() by skipping free space accounting and then make pfree() a no-op. I recall Tom mentioning something to this effect a few months back... -Neil
Re: PG on NFS may be just a bad idea
От:
Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
Дата:
On Mon, 2007-10-01 at 19:25 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Simon Riggs writes: > > http://blogs.netapp.com/dave/2007/08/oracle-optimize.html > > Not a whole lot of technical content there, but pretty interesting > nonetheless. I *think* that the issues we're seeing are largely in the > NFS client-side kernel code, so bypassing that stack as Oracle is doing > might eliminate the problem. Of course, there's a sizable amount of > code to be written to do that ... Yeh, that would take a while. I thought of another reason to do that also. If you put a tablespace on an NFS mount and the remote server crashes, it sounds like there could be a window of potential data loss. We could guard against that by recovering the tablespace, but we don't do that unless the local server crashes. So having your own NFS client would allow you to tell that the link had dropped and needed to be recovered. -- Simon Riggs 2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
Re: PG on NFS may be just a bad idea
От:
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Дата:
Josh Berkus writes: >> Maybe we need to actively discourage people from running Postgres >> against NFS-mounted data directories. > It's hard to reconcile this with the real-world performance of > PostgreSQL on NFS, which is happening all over the place. Most notably, > Joe Conway's 20,000 txn/sec. This is not a question of performance, it is a question of whether you are willing to tolerate corner-case misbehaviors. regards, tom lane
Re: PG on NFS may be just a bad idea
От:
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
Дата:
Tom Lane wrote: > Simon Riggs writes: > > http://blogs.netapp.com/dave/2007/08/oracle-optimize.html > > Not a whole lot of technical content there, but pretty interesting > nonetheless. I *think* that the issues we're seeing are largely in the > NFS client-side kernel code, so bypassing that stack as Oracle is doing > might eliminate the problem. Of course, there's a sizable amount of > code to be written to do that ... Yeah. Next step we will be writing our own malloc. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
Re: PG on NFS may be just a bad idea
От:
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Дата:
Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: > > Simon Riggs writes: > > > http://blogs.netapp.com/dave/2007/08/oracle-optimize.html > > > > Not a whole lot of technical content there, but pretty interesting > > nonetheless. I *think* that the issues we're seeing are largely in the > > NFS client-side kernel code, so bypassing that stack as Oracle is doing > > might eliminate the problem. Of course, there's a sizable amount of > > code to be written to do that ... > > Yeah. Next step we will be writing our own malloc. I assume there should be a ;-) in there because we already have our own malloc (palloc). -- Bruce Momjian http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://postgres.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
Re: PG on NFS may be just a bad idea
От:
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
Дата:
Bruce Momjian wrote: > Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > Tom Lane wrote: > > > Simon Riggs writes: > > > > http://blogs.netapp.com/dave/2007/08/oracle-optimize.html > > > > > > Not a whole lot of technical content there, but pretty interesting > > > nonetheless. I *think* that the issues we're seeing are largely in the > > > NFS client-side kernel code, so bypassing that stack as Oracle is doing > > > might eliminate the problem. Of course, there's a sizable amount of > > > code to be written to do that ... > > > > Yeah. Next step we will be writing our own malloc. > > I assume there should be a ;-) in there because we already have our own > malloc (palloc). Yeah, some sort of smiley should be there. But what I'm talking about is rewriting the underlying memory allocation mechanism, just like we would be rewriting the NFS client. palloc uses malloc underneath. My thought is to replace that with sbrk, mmap or something like that. Not very portable though, a lot of work, and most likely not nearly enough benefits. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.PlanetPostgreSQL.org/ "Nadie esta tan esclavizado como el que se cree libre no siendolo" (Goethe)
Re: PG on NFS may be just a bad idea
От:
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Дата:
Simon Riggs writes: > http://blogs.netapp.com/dave/2007/08/oracle-optimize.html Not a whole lot of technical content there, but pretty interesting nonetheless. I *think* that the issues we're seeing are largely in the NFS client-side kernel code, so bypassing that stack as Oracle is doing might eliminate the problem. Of course, there's a sizable amount of code to be written to do that ... regards, tom lane
PG on NFS may be just a bad idea
От:
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Дата:
I spent a bit of time tonight poking at the issue reported here:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-novice/2007-08/msg00123.php
It turns out to be quite easy to reproduce, at least for me: start CVS
HEAD on an NFS-mounted $PGDATA directory, and run the contrib regression
tests ("make installcheck" in contrib/). I see more than half of the
DROP DATABASE commands complaining in exactly the way Miya describes.
This failure rate might be an artifact of the particular environment
(I tested NFS client = Fedora Core 6, server = HPUX 10.20 on a much
slower machine) but the problem is clearly real.
In the earlier thread I cited suggestions that this behavior comes from
client programs holding files open longer than they should. However,
strace'ing this behavior shows no evidence at all that that is happening
in Postgres. I have an strace that shows conclusively that the bgwriter
never opened any file in the target database at all, and all earlier
backends exited before the one doing the DROP DATABASE began its dirty
work, and yet:
[pid 19211] 22:50:30.517077 rmdir("base/18193") = -1 ENOTEMPTY (Directory not empty)
[pid 19211] 22:50:30.517863 write(2, "WARNING: could not remove file "..., 79WARNING: could not remove file or directory "base/18193": Directory not empty
) = 79
[pid 19211] 22:50:30.517974 sendto(7, "N\0\0\0rSWARNING\0C01000\0Mcould not "..., 115, 0, NULL, 0) = 115
After some googling I think that the damage may actually be getting done
at the kernel level. According to
http://www.time-travellers.org/shane/papers/NFS_considered_harmful.html
it is fairly common for NFS clients to cache writes, meaning that the
kernel itself may be holding an old write and not sending it to the NFS
server until after the file deletion command has been sent.
(I don't have the network-fu needed to prove that this is happening by
sniffing the network traffic; anyone want to try?)
If this is what's happening I'd claim it is a kernel bug, but seeing
that I see it on FC6 and Miya sees it on Solaris 10, it would be a bug
widespread enough that we'd not be likely to get it killed off soon.
Maybe we need to actively discourage people from running Postgres
against NFS-mounted data directories. Shane Kerr's paper cited above
mentions some other rather scary properties, including O_EXCL file
creation not really working properly.
regards, tom lane
Re: PG on NFS may be just a bad idea
От:
Zdenek Kotala <Zdenek.Kotala@Sun.COM>
Дата:
Tom Lane wrote: > > If this is what's happening I'd claim it is a kernel bug, but seeing > that I see it on FC6 and Miya sees it on Solaris 10, it would be a bug > widespread enough that we'd not be likely to get it killed off soon. > I think my colleague was solving similar issue in JavaDB. IIRC the problem is in how NFS works and conclusion was do not use JavaDB (Derby) on NFS. I forwarded this issue to our NFS gurus and I will send updated information. Zdenek
Re: PG on NFS may be just a bad idea
От:
Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
Дата:
Tom, > Maybe we need to actively discourage people from running Postgres > against NFS-mounted data directories. Shane Kerr's paper cited above > mentions some other rather scary properties, including O_EXCL file > creation not really working properly. Wouldn't you be describing a Linux-specific issue, though? And possibly kernel-specific? It's hard to reconcile this with the real-world performance of PostgreSQL on NFS, which is happening all over the place. Most notably, Joe Conway's 20,000 txn/sec. I *do* think it's an accurate statement that if you're going to use Postgres, or any other OLTP database, on NFS you'd better have access to a NAS expert. But to say that it's a bad idea even if you have expert help is probably going to far. --Josh Berkus
