Re: Postgres 10, slave not catching up with master - Mailing list pgsql-general

Hi

El mié., 24 de oct. de 2018 a la(s) 00:39, Boris Sagadin (boris@infosplet.com) escribió:

Yes, times are all identical, set to UTC, ntpd is used.

 log_delay
-----------
 15.788175

This is delay at this moment, but we graph replication delay and it's fluctuating between 0 and 30s.

But the fluctuation is between 0 and 30s!1, are not 4 hours fortunately. Apart from the theme wal compression I think you should check networks

 

Before I turned off wal compression, lag was much bigger (0 to up to 8 minutes). We have lots of tables (40k) and many upserts.

Boris

On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 8:24 PM, Hellmuth Vargas <hivs77@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi

Both servers are configured with the same date, time and time configuration?

El mar., 23 de oct. de 2018 a la(s) 13:16, Hellmuth Vargas (hivs77@gmail.com) escribió:

Hi

which result you get from the following query:

SELECT CASE WHEN pg_last_wal_receive_lsn() = pg_last_wal_replay_lsn()

THEN 0

ELSE EXTRACT (EPOCH FROM now() - pg_last_xact_replay_timestamp())

END AS log_delay;

source:

https://severalnines.com/blog/postgresql-streaming-replication-deep-dive

El mar., 23 de oct. de 2018 a la(s) 11:28, Boris Sagadin (boris@infosplet.com) escribió:

Nothing special, just:

standby_mode = 'on'
primary_conninfo = 'host=...  user=repmgr application_name=nodex'
recovery_target_timeline = 'latest'

Boris

On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 3:10 PM, Hellmuth Vargas <hivs77@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi

can share recovery.conf file settings?? 

El mar., 23 de oct. de 2018 a la(s) 00:28, Boris Sagadin (boris@infosplet.com) escribió:

Yes, turning wal_compression off improves things. Slave that was mentioned unfortunately lagged too much before this setting was applied and was turned off. However the remaining slave lags less now, although still occasionally up to a few minutes. I think single threadedness of recovery is a big slowdown for write heavy databases. Maybe an option to increase wal_size beyond 16MB in v11 will help.

In the meantime we'll solve this by splitting the DB to 2 or 3 clusters or maybe trying out some sharding solution like Citus.

Boris

On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 9:06 AM, Boris Sagadin <boris@infosplet.com> wrote:

Hello,

I have a database running on i3.8xlarge (256GB RAM, 32 CPU cores, 4x 1.9TB NVMe drive) AWS instance with about 5TB of disk space occupied, ext4, Ubuntu 16.04.

Multi-tenant DB with about 40000 tables, insert heavy.

I started a new slave with identical HW specs, SR. DB started syncing from master, which took about 4 hours, then it started applying the WALs. However, it seems it can't catch up. Delay is still around 3 hours (measured with now() - pg_last_xact_replay_timestamp()), even a day later. It goes a few 100s up and down, but it seems to float around 3h mark.

Disk IO is low at about 10%, measured with iostat, no connected clients, recovery process is at around 90% CPU single core usage.

Tried tuning the various parameters, but with no avail. Only thing I found suspicious is stracing the recovery process constantly produces many errors such as:

lseek(428, 0, SEEK_END)                 = 780124160
lseek(30, 0, SEEK_END)                  = 212992
read(9, 0x7ffe4001f557, 1)              = -1 EAGAIN (Resource temporarily unavailable)
lseek(680, 0, SEEK_END)                 = 493117440
read(9, 0x7ffe4001f557, 1)              = -1 EAGAIN (Resource temporarily unavailable)
lseek(774, 0, SEEK_END)                 = 583368704

...[snip]...

read(9, 0x7ffe4001f557, 1)              = -1 EAGAIN (Resource temporarily unavailable)
lseek(774, 0, SEEK_END)                 = 583368704
read(9, 0x7ffe4001f557, 1)              = -1 EAGAIN (Resource temporarily unavailable)
lseek(277, 0, SEEK_END)                 = 502882304
lseek(6, 516096, SEEK_SET)              = 516096
read(6, "\227\320\5\0\1\0\0\0\0\340\7\246\26\274\0\0\315\0\0\0\0\0\0\0}\0178\5&/\260\r"..., 8192) = 8192
read(9, 0x7ffe4001f557, 1)              = -1 EAGAIN (Resource temporarily unavailable)
lseek(735, 0, SEEK_END)                 = 272809984
read(9, 0x7ffe4001f557, 1)              = -1 EAGAIN (Resource temporarily unavailable)
lseek(277, 0, SEEK_END)                 = 502882304

ls -l fd/9
lr-x------ 1 postgres postgres 64 Oct 21 06:21 fd/9 -> pipe:[46358]

Perf top on recovery produces:

 27.76%  postgres            [.] pglz_decompress
   9.90%  [kernel]            [k] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_swapgs
   7.09%  postgres            [.] hash_search_with_hash_value
   4.26%  libpthread-2.23.so  [.] llseek
   3.64%  libpthread-2.23.so  [.] __read_nocancel
   2.80%  [kernel]            [k] __fget_light
   2.67%  postgres            [.] 0x000000000034d3ba
   1.85%  [kernel]            [k] ext4_llseek
   1.84%  postgres            [.] pg_comp_crc32c_sse42
   1.44%  postgres            [.] hash_any
   1.35%  postgres            [.] 0x000000000036afad
   1.29%  postgres            [.] MarkBufferDirty
   1.21%  postgres            [.] XLogReadRecord

[...]

Tried changing the process limits with prlimit to unlimited, but no change.

I can turn off the WAL compression but I doubt this is the main culprit. Any ideas appreciated.

Regards,

Boris

--

Cordialmente,

Ing. Hellmuth I. Vargas S.
Esp. Telemática y Negocios por Internet 

Oracle Database 10g Administrator Certified Associate

EnterpriseDB Certified PostgreSQL 9.3 Associate

--

Cordialmente,

Ing. Hellmuth I. Vargas S.

--

Cordialmente,

Ing. Hellmuth I. Vargas S.

--

Cordialmente,

Ing. Hellmuth I. Vargas S.
Esp. Telemática y Negocios por Internet 

Oracle Database 10g Administrator Certified Associate

EnterpriseDB Certified PostgreSQL 9.3 Associate