Re: [PoC] Non-volatile WAL buffer - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 2:16 AM Tomas Vondra
<tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I think I've managed to get the 0002 patch [1] rebased to master and
> working (with help from Masahiko Sawada). It's not clear to me how it
> could have worked as submitted - my theory is that an incomplete patch
> was submitted by mistake, or something like that.
>
> Unfortunately, the benchmark results were kinda disappointing. For a
> pgbench on scale 500 (fits into shared buffers), an average of three
> 5-minute runs looks like this:
>
>    branch                 1        16        32        64        96
>    ----------------------------------------------------------------
>    master              7291     87704    165310    150437    224186
>    ntt                 7912    106095    213206    212410    237819
>    simple-no-buffers   7654     96544    115416     95828    103065
>
> NTT refers to the patch from September 10, pre-allocating a large WAL
> file on PMEM, and simple-no-buffers is the simpler patch simply removing
> the WAL buffers and writing directly to a mmap-ed WAL segment on PMEM.
>
> Note: The patch is just replacing the old implementation with mmap.
> That's good enough for experiments like this, but we probably want to
> keep the old one for setups without PMEM. But it's good enough for
> testing, benchmarking etc.
>
> Unfortunately, the results for this simple approach are pretty bad. Not
> only compared to the "ntt" patch, but even to master. I'm not entirely
> sure what's the root cause, but I have a couple hypotheses:
>
> 1) bug in the patch - That's clearly a possibility, although I've tried
> tried to eliminate this possibility.
>
> 2) PMEM is slower than DRAM - From what I know, PMEM is much faster than
> NVMe storage, but still much slower than DRAM (both in terms of latency
> and bandwidth, see [2] for some data). It's not terrible, but the
> latency is maybe 2-3x higher - not a huge difference, but may matter for
> WAL buffers?
>
> 3) PMEM does not handle parallel writes well - If you look at [2],
> Figure 4(b), you'll see that the throughput actually *drops" as the
> number of threads increase. That's pretty strange / annoying, because
> that's how we write into WAL buffers - each thread writes it's own data,
> so parallelism is not something we can get rid of.
>
> I've added some simple profiling, to measure number of calls / time for
> each operation (use -DXLOG_DEBUG_STATS to enable). It accumulates data
> for each backend, and logs the counts every 1M ops.
>
> Typical stats from a concurrent run looks like this:
>
>    xlog stats cnt 43000000
>       map cnt 100 time 5448333 unmap cnt 100 time 3730963
>       memcpy cnt 985964 time 1550442272 len 15150499
>       memset cnt 0 time 0 len 0
>       persist cnt 13836 time 10369617 len 16292182
>
> The times are in nanoseconds, so this says the backend did 100  mmap and
> unmap calls, taking ~10ms in total. There were ~14k pmem_persist calls,
> taking 10ms in total. And the most time (~1.5s) was used by pmem_memcpy
> copying about 15MB of data. That's quite a lot :-(

It might also be interesting if we can see how much time spent on each
logging function, such as XLogInsert(), XLogWrite(), and XLogFlush().

>
> My conclusion from this is that eliminating WAL buffers and writing WAL
> directly to PMEM (by memcpy to mmap-ed WAL segments) is probably not the
> right approach.
>
> I suppose we should keep WAL buffers, and then just write the data to
> mmap-ed WAL segments on PMEM. Which I think is what the NTT patch does,
> except that it allocates one huge file on PMEM and writes to that
> (instead of the traditional WAL segments).
>
> So I decided to try how it'd work with writing to regular WAL segments,
> mmap-ed ad hoc. The pmem-with-wal-buffers-master.patch patch does that,
> and the results look a bit nicer:
>
>    branch                 1        16        32        64        96
>    ----------------------------------------------------------------
>    master              7291     87704    165310    150437    224186
>    ntt                 7912    106095    213206    212410    237819
>    simple-no-buffers   7654     96544    115416     95828    103065
>    with-wal-buffers    7477     95454    181702    140167    214715
>
> So, much better than the version without WAL buffers, somewhat better
> than master (except for 64/96 clients), but still not as good as NTT.
>
> At this point I was wondering how could the NTT patch be faster when
> it's doing roughly the same thing. I'm sire there are some differences,
> but it seemed strange. The main difference seems to be that it only maps
> one large file, and only once. OTOH the alternative "simple" patch maps
> segments one by one, in each backend. Per the debug stats the map/unmap
> calls are fairly cheap, but maybe it interferes with the memcpy somehow.
>

While looking at the two methods: NTT and simple-no-buffer, I realized
that in XLogFlush(), NTT patch flushes (by pmem_flush() and
pmem_drain()) WAL without acquiring WALWriteLock whereas
simple-no-buffer patch acquires WALWriteLock to do that
(pmem_persist()). I wonder if this also affected the performance
differences between those two methods since WALWriteLock serializes
the operations. With PMEM, multiple backends can concurrently flush
the records if the memory region is not overlapped? If so, flushing
WAL without WALWriteLock would be a big benefit.

> So I did an experiment by increasing the size of the WAL segments. I
> chose to try with 521MB and 1024MB, and the results with 1GB look like this:
>
>    branch                 1        16        32        64        96
>    ----------------------------------------------------------------
>    master              6635     88524    171106    163387    245307
>    ntt                 7909    106826    217364    223338    242042
>    simple-no-buffers   7871    101575    199403    188074    224716
>    with-wal-buffers    7643    101056    206911    223860    261712
>
> So yeah, there's a clear difference. It changes the values for "master"
> a bit, but both the "simple" patches (with and without) WAL buffers are
> much faster. The with-wal-buffers is almost equal to the  NTT patch,
> which was using 96GB file. I presume larger WAL segments would get even
> closer, if we supported them.
>
> I'll continue investigating this, but my conclusion so far seem to be
> that we can't really replace WAL buffers with PMEM - that seems to
> perform much worse.
>
> The question is what to do about the segment size. Can we reduce the
> overhead of mmap-ing individual segments, so that this works even for
> smaller WAL segments, to make this useful for common instances (not
> everyone wants to run with 1GB WAL). Or whether we need to adopt the
> design with a large file, mapped just once.
>
> Another question is whether it's even worth the extra complexity. On
> 16MB segments the difference between master and NTT patch seems to be
> non-trivial, but increasing the WAL segment size kinda reduces that. So
> maybe just using File I/O on PMEM DAX filesystem seems good enough.
> Alternatively, maybe we could switch to libpmemblk, which should
> eliminate the filesystem overhead at least.

I think the performance improvement by NTT patch with the 16MB WAL
segment, the most common WAL segment size, is very good (150437 vs.
212410 with 64 clients). But maybe evaluating writing WAL segment
files on PMEM DAX filesystem is also worth, as you mentioned, if we
don't do that yet.

Also, I'm interested in why the through-put of NTT patch saturated at
32 clients, which is earlier than the master's one (96 clients). How
many CPU cores are there on the machine you used?

> I'm also wondering if WAL is the right usage for PMEM. Per [2] there's a
> huge read-write assymmetry (the writes being way slower), and their
> recommendation (in "Observation 3" is)
>
>      The read-write asymmetry of PMem im-plies the necessity of avoiding
>      writes as much as possible for PMem.
>
> So maybe we should not be trying to use PMEM for WAL, which is pretty
> write-heavy (and in most cases even write-only).

I think using PMEM for WAL is cost-effective but it leverages the only
low-latency (sequential) write, but not other abilities such as
fine-grained access and low-latency random write. If we want to
exploit its all ability we might need some drastic changes to logging
protocol while considering storing data on PMEM.

Regards,

--
Masahiko Sawada
EnterpriseDB:  https://www.enterprisedb.com/