Re: WIP/PoC for parallel backup - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Asif Rehman
Subject Re: WIP/PoC for parallel backup
Date
Msg-id CADM=Jeih4L6Nv1R8mBxD=JMrP1_4gKO2ywZHsduuw+78dBoUCw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: WIP/PoC for parallel backup  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: WIP/PoC for parallel backup
Re: WIP/PoC for parallel backup
List pgsql-hackers


On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 6:40 PM Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 12:00 PM Asif Rehman <asifr.rehman@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > - SEND_FILES_CONTENTS (file1, file2,...) - returns the files in given list.
>> > pg_basebackup will then send back a list of filenames in this command. This commands will be send by each worker and that worker will be getting the said files.
>>
>> Seems reasonable, but I think you should just pass one file name and
>> use the command multiple times, once per file.
>
> I considered this approach initially,  however, I adopted the current strategy to avoid multiple round trips between the server and clients and save on query processing time by issuing a single command rather than multiple ones. Further fetching multiple files at once will also aid in supporting the tar format by utilising the existing ReceiveTarFile() function and will be able to create a tarball for per tablespace per worker.

I think that sending multiple filenames on a line could save some time
when there are lots of very small files, because then the round-trip
overhead could be significant.

However, if you've got mostly big files, I think this is going to be a
loser. It'll be fine if you're able to divide the work exactly evenly,
but that's pretty hard to do, because some workers may succeed in
copying the data faster than others for a variety of reasons: some
data is in memory, some data has to be read from disk, different data
may need to be read from different disks that run at different speeds,
not all the network connections may run at the same speed. Remember
that the backup's not done until the last worker finishes, and so
there may well be a significant advantage in terms of overall speed in
putting some energy into making sure that they finish as close to each
other in time as possible.

To put that another way, the first time all the workers except one get
done while the last one still has 10GB of data to copy, somebody's
going to be unhappy.

I have updated the patch (see the attached patch) to include tablespace support, tar format support and all other backup base backup options to work in parallel mode as well. As previously suggested, I have removed BASE_BACKUP [PARALLEL] and have added START_BACKUP instead to start the backup. The tar format will write multiple tar files depending upon the number of workers specified. Also made all commands (START_BACKUP/SEND_FILES_CONTENT/STOP_BACKUP) to accept the base_backup_opt_list. This way the command-line options can also be provided to these commands. Since the command-line options don't change once the backup initiates, I went this way instead of storing them in shared state.

The START_BACKUP command will now return a sorted list of files in descending order based on file sizes. This way, the larger files will be on top of the list. hence these files will be assigned to workers one by one, making it so that the larger files will be copied before other files.

Based on my understanding your main concern is that the files won't be distributed fairly i.e one worker might get a big file and take more time while others get done early with smaller files? In this approach I have created a list of files in descending order based on there sizes so all the big size files will come at the top. The maximum file size in PG is 1GB so if we have four workers who are picking up file from the list one by one, the worst case scenario is that one worker gets a file of 1GB to process while others get files of smaller size. However with this approach of descending files based on size and handing it out to workers one by one, there is a very high likelihood of workers getting work evenly. does this address your concerns?

Furthermore the patch also includes the regression test. As t/010_pg_basebackup.pl test-case is testing base backup comprehensively, so I have duplicated it to "t/040_pg_basebackup_parallel.pl" and added parallel option in all of its tests, to make sure parallel mode works expectantly. The one thing that differs from base backup is the file checksum reporting. In parallel mode, the total number of checksum failures are not reported correctly however it will abort the backup whenever a checksum failure occurs. This is because processes are not maintaining any shared state. I assume that it's not much important to report total number of failures vs noticing the failure and aborting.


--
Asif Rehman
Highgo Software (Canada/China/Pakistan)
URL : www.highgo.ca

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Block level parallel vacuum
Next
From: Natarajan R
Date:
Subject: HashTable KeySize