Thread: Re: [HACKERS] Linux Largefile Support In Postgresql RPMS
Note, I'm not sure this belongs in -hackers so I've added -general but left -hackers in so that list can at least see that it's going to -general. On Thu, 8 Aug 2002, mark Kirkwood wrote: > Hi all, > > I just spent some of the morning helping a customer build Pg 7.2.1 from > source in order to get Linux largefile support in pg_dump etc. They > possibly would have kept using the binary RPMs if they had this feature. > > This got me to wondering why the Redhat/Mandrake...etc binary RPMS are > built without it. > > Would including default largefile support in Linux RPMs be a good idea ? > > (I am presuming that such RPMs are built by the Pg community and > "supplied" to the various distros... apologies if I have this all wrong...) I must admit that I am fairly new to PostgreSQL but I have used it and read stuff about it and I'm not sure what you mean. Could you explain what you did? A quick scan of the source shows that there may be an issue in storage/file/buffile.c:BufFileSeek() is that the sort of thing you are talking about? Or maybe I've got it completely wrong and you're talking about adding code to pg_dump although I thought that could already handle large objects. Actually, I'm going to shut up now before I really do show my ignorance and let you answer. -- Nigel J. Andrews Director --- Logictree Systems Limited Computer Consultants
Hi, just my two cents worth: I like having the files sized in a way I can handle them easily with any UNIX tool on nearly any system. No matter wether I want to cp, tar, dump, dd, cat or gzip the file: Just keep it at a maximum size below any limits, handy for handling. For example, Oracle suggests it somewhere in their documentation, to keep datafiles at a reasonable size, e.g. 1 GB. Seems right to me, never had any problems with it. Kind regards ... Ralph ...
On Thursday 08 August 2002 05:36 pm, Nigel J. Andrews wrote: > Matt Kirkwood wrote: > > I just spent some of the morning helping a customer build Pg 7.2.1 from > > source in order to get Linux largefile support in pg_dump etc. They > > possibly would have kept using the binary RPMs if they had this feature. And you added this by doing what, exactly? I'm not familiar with pg_dump largefile support as a standalone feature. > > (I am presuming that such RPMs are built by the Pg community and > > "supplied" to the various distros... apologies if I have this all > > wrong...) You have this wrong. The distributions do periodically sync up with my revision, and I with theirs, but they do their own packaging. -- Lamar Owen WGCR Internet Radio 1 Peter 4:11
On Fri, 2002-08-09 at 06:07, Lamar Owen wrote: > On Thursday 08 August 2002 05:36 pm, Nigel J. Andrews wrote: > > Matt Kirkwood wrote: > > > > I just spent some of the morning helping a customer build Pg 7.2.1 from > > > source in order to get Linux largefile support in pg_dump etc. They > > > possibly would have kept using the binary RPMs if they had this feature. > > And you added this by doing what, exactly? I'm not familiar with pg_dump > largefile support as a standalone feature. As far as I can make out from the libc docs, largefile support is automatic if the macro _GNU_SOURCE is defined and the kernel supports large files. Is that a correct understanding? or do I actually need to do something special to ensure that pg_dump supports large files? -- Oliver Elphick Oliver.Elphick@lfix.co.uk Isle of Wight, UK http://www.lfix.co.uk/oliver GPG: 1024D/3E1D0C1C: CA12 09E0 E8D5 8870 5839 932A 614D 4C34 3E1D 0C1C ======================================== "...ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full." John 16:24
> As far as I can make out from the libc docs, largefile support is > automatic if the macro _GNU_SOURCE is defined and the kernel supports > large files. > > Is that a correct understanding? or do I actually need to do something > special to ensure that pg_dump supports large files? in this case you still have to use large file functions in the code explicitly the easiest way to get large file support is to pass -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 to the preprocessor, and I think I remember doing this once for pg_dump see /usr/include/features.h Best regards Helge
On Fri, 9 Aug 2002, Helge Bahmann wrote: > > As far as I can make out from the libc docs, largefile support is > > automatic if the macro _GNU_SOURCE is defined and the kernel supports > > large files. > > > > Is that a correct understanding? or do I actually need to do something > > special to ensure that pg_dump supports large files? > > in this case you still have to use large file functions in the code > explicitly > > the easiest way to get large file support is to pass > -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 to the preprocessor, and I think I remember doing > this once for pg_dump > > see /usr/include/features.h There is some commentary on this in my /usr/doc/libc6/NOTES.gz, which I presume Oliver has already found since I found it after reading his posting. It gives a bit more detail that the header file for those who want to check this out. I for one was completely unaware of those 64 bit functions. -- Nigel J. Andrews Director --- Logictree Systems Limited Computer Consultants
Lamar Owen wrote: > >And you added this by doing what, exactly? I'm not familiar with pg_dump >largefile support as a standalone feature. > Enabling largefile support for the utilities was accomplished by : CFLAGS="-O2 -D_LARGEFILE_SOURCE -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64" ./configure ... It seemed to me that the ability to dump databases >2G without gzip, split etc was a "good thing". What do you think ? > > >You have this wrong. The distributions do periodically sync up with my >revision, and I with theirs, but they do their own packaging. > I see.... so if you enabled such support, they they would probably sync that too ?
Ralph Graulich wrote: >Hi, > >just my two cents worth: I like having the files sized in a way I can >handle them easily with any UNIX tool on nearly any system. No matter >wether I want to cp, tar, dump, dd, cat or gzip the file: Just keep it at >a maximum size below any limits, handy for handling. > Good point... however I was thinking that being able to dump the entire database without resporting to "gzips and splits" was handy... > >For example, Oracle suggests it somewhere in their documentation, to keep >datafiles at a reasonable size, e.g. 1 GB. Seems right to me, never had >any problems with it. > Yep, fixed or controlled sizes for data files is great... I was thinking about databases rather than data files (altho I may not have made that clear in my mail) best wishes Mark
Oliver Elphick wrote: >As far as I can make out from the libc docs, largefile support is >automatic if the macro _GNU_SOURCE is defined and the kernel supports >large files. > >Is that a correct understanding? or do I actually need to do something >special to ensure that pg_dump supports large files? > I defined _LARGEFILE_SOURCE and _FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 however _GNU_SOURCE may well be a cleaner way of getting the same effect (guess I should browse the .h files...) regards Mark
On Sat, 2002-08-10 at 06:32, Mark Kirkwood wrote: > Oliver Elphick wrote: > > >As far as I can make out from the libc docs, largefile support is > >automatic if the macro _GNU_SOURCE is defined and the kernel supports > >large files. > > > >Is that a correct understanding? or do I actually need to do something > >special to ensure that pg_dump supports large files? > > > I defined > > _LARGEFILE_SOURCE and > _FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 > > however _GNU_SOURCE may well be a cleaner way of getting the same effect > (guess I should browse the .h files...) It seems that it has to be defined explicitly. -- Oliver Elphick Oliver.Elphick@lfix.co.uk Isle of Wight, UK http://www.lfix.co.uk/oliver GPG: 1024D/3E1D0C1C: CA12 09E0 E8D5 8870 5839 932A 614D 4C34 3E1D 0C1C ======================================== "If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you." John 15:7
On Sat, Aug 10, 2002 at 09:21:07AM -0500, Greg Copeland wrote:
> I'm actually amazed that postgres isn't already using large file
> support. Especially for tools like dump.
Except it would only cause confusion if you ran such a program on a
system that didn't itself have largefile support. Better to make the
admin turn all these things on on purpose, until everyone is running
64 bit systems everywhere.
A
--
----
Andrew Sullivan 87 Mowat Avenue
Liberty RMS Toronto, Ontario Canada
<andrew@libertyrms.info> M6K 3E3
+1 416 646 3304 x110
On Mon, 2002-08-12 at 09:39, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Sat, Aug 10, 2002 at 09:21:07AM -0500, Greg Copeland wrote: > > > I'm actually amazed that postgres isn't already using large file > > support. Especially for tools like dump. > > Except it would only cause confusion if you ran such a program on a > system that didn't itself have largefile support. Better to make the > admin turn all these things on on purpose, until everyone is running > 64 bit systems everywhere. If by "turn...on", you mean recompile, that's a horrible idea IMO. Besides, you're expecting that an admin is going to know that he even needs to recompile to obtain this feature let alone that he'd interested in compiling his own installation. Whereas, more then likely he'll know off hand (or can easily find out) if his FS/system supports large files (>32 bit sizes). Seems like, systems which can natively support this feature should have it enabled by default. It's a different issue if an admin attempts to create files larger than what his system and/or FS can support. I guess what I'm trying to say here is, it's moving the problem from being a postgres specific issue (not compiled in -- having to recompile and install and not knowing if it's (dis)enabled) to a general body of knowledge (does my system support such-n-such capabilities). If a recompile time is still much preferred by the core developers, perhaps a log entry can be created which at least denotes the current status of such a feature when a compile time option is required. Simply having an entry of, "LOG: LARGE FILE SUPPORT (DIS)ENABLED (64-bit file sizes)", etc...things along those lines. Of course, having a "--enable-large-files" would be nice too. This would seemingly make sense in other contexts too. Imagine a back-end compiled with large file support and someone else using fe tools which does not support it. How are they going to know if their fe/be supports this feature unless we let them know? Greg
Attachment
On Mon, Aug 12, 2002 at 10:15:46AM -0500, Greg Copeland wrote:
> If by "turn...on", you mean recompile, that's a horrible idea IMO.
Ah. Well, that is what I meant. Why is it horrible? PostgreSQL
doesn't take very long to compile.
> I guess what I'm trying to say here is, it's moving the problem from
> being a postgres specific issue (not compiled in -- having to recompile
> and install and not knowing if it's (dis)enabled) to a general body of
> knowledge (does my system support such-n-such capabilities).
The problem is not just a system-level one, but a filesystem-level
one. Enabling 64 bits by default might be dangerous, because a DBA
might think "oh, it supports largefiles by default" and therefore not
notice that the filesystem itself is not mounted with largefile
support. But I suspect that the developers would welcome autoconfig
patches if someone offered them.
A
--
----
Andrew Sullivan 87 Mowat Avenue
Liberty RMS Toronto, Ontario Canada
<andrew@libertyrms.info> M6K 3E3
+1 416 646 3304 x110
On Monday 12 August 2002 11:30 am, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > The problem is not just a system-level one, but a filesystem-level > one. Enabling 64 bits by default might be dangerous, because a DBA > might think "oh, it supports largefiles by default" and therefore not > notice that the filesystem itself is not mounted with largefile > support. But I suspect that the developers would welcome autoconfig > patches if someone offered them. Interesting point. Before I could deploy RPMs with largefile support by default, I would have to make sure it wouldn't silently break anything. So keep discussing the issues involved, and I'll see what comes of it. I don't have an direct experience with the largefile support, and am learning as I go with this. Given that I have to make the source RPM's buildable on distributions that might not have the largefile support available, so on those distributions the support will have to be unavailable -- and the decision to build it or not to build it must be automatable. -- Lamar Owen WGCR Internet Radio 1 Peter 4:11
On Mon, Aug 12, 2002 at 11:44:24AM -0400, Lamar Owen wrote:
> > The problem is not just a system-level one, but a filesystem-level
> > one. Enabling 64 bits by default might be dangerous, because a DBA
> > might think "oh, it supports largefiles by default" and therefore not
> > notice that the filesystem itself is not mounted with largefile
> > support.
> keep discussing the issues involved, and I'll see what comes of it. I don't
> have an direct experience with the largefile support, and am learning as I go
> with this.
I do have experience with both of these cases. We're hosted in a
managed-hosting environment, and one day one of the sysadmins there
must've remounted a filesystem without largefile support. Poof! I
started getting all sorts of strange pg_dump problems. It wasn't
hard to track down, except that I was initially surprised by the
errors, since I'd just _enabled_ large file support.
This is an area that is not encountered terribly often, actually,
because postgres itself breaks its files at 1G. Most people's dump
files either don't reach the 2G limit, or they use split (a
reasonable plan).
There are, in any case, _lots_ of problems with these large files.
You not only need to make sure that pg_dump and friends can support
files bigger than 2G. You need to make sure that you can move the
files around (your file transfer commands), that you can compress the
files (how is gzip compiled? bzip2?), and even that you r backup
software takes the large file. In a few years, when all
installations are ready for this, it seems like it'd be a good idea
to turn this on by default. Right now, I think the risks are at
least as great as those incurred by telling people they need to
recompile.
A
--
----
Andrew Sullivan 87 Mowat Avenue
Liberty RMS Toronto, Ontario Canada
<andrew@libertyrms.info> M6K 3E3
+1 416 646 3304 x110
On Mon, 2002-08-12 at 10:30, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Mon, Aug 12, 2002 at 10:15:46AM -0500, Greg Copeland wrote: > > > If by "turn...on", you mean recompile, that's a horrible idea IMO. > > Ah. Well, that is what I meant. Why is it horrible? PostgreSQL > doesn't take very long to compile. Many reasons. A DBA is not always the same thing as a developer (which means it's doubtful he's even going to know about needed options to pass -- if any). Using a self compiled installation may not install the same sense of reliability (I know that sounds odd) as using a distribution's package. DBA may not be a SA, which means he should probably not be compiling and installing software on a system. Furthermore, he may not even have access to do so. Means upgrading in the future may be problematic. Someone compiled with large file support. He leaves. New release comes out. Someone else upgrades and now finds things are broken. Why? If it supported it out of the box, issue is avoided. Lastly, and perhaps the most obvious, SA and DBA bodies of knowledge are fairly distinct. You should not expect a DBA to function as a SA. Furthermore, SA and developer bodies of knowledge are also fairly distinct. You shouldn't expect a SA to know what compiler options he needs to use to compile software on his system. Especially for something as obscure as large file support. > > > I guess what I'm trying to say here is, it's moving the problem from > > being a postgres specific issue (not compiled in -- having to recompile > > and install and not knowing if it's (dis)enabled) to a general body of > > knowledge (does my system support such-n-such capabilities). > > The problem is not just a system-level one, but a filesystem-level > one. Enabling 64 bits by default might be dangerous, because a DBA > might think "oh, it supports largefiles by default" and therefore not > notice that the filesystem itself is not mounted with largefile > support. But I suspect that the developers would welcome autoconfig > patches if someone offered them. The distinction you make there is minor. A SA, should know and understand the capabilities of the systems he maintains (this is true even if the SA and DBA are one). This includes filesystem capabilities. A DBA, should only care about the system requirements and trust that the SA can deliver those capabilities. If a SA says, my filesystems can support very large files, installs postgres, the DBA should expect that match support in the database is already available. Woe is his surprise when he finds out that his postgres installation can't handle it?! As for the concern for danger. Hmm...my understanding is that the result is pretty much the same thing as exceeding max file size. That is, if you attempt to read/write beyond what the filesystem can provide, you're still going to get an error. Is this really more dangerous than simply reading/writing to a file which exceeds max system capabilities? Either way, this issue exists and having large file support, seemingly, does not effect it one way or another. I guess I'm tying to say, the risk of seeing filesystem corruption or even database corruption should not be effected by the use of large file support. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Greg
Attachment
On Mon, 2002-08-12 at 11:04, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Mon, Aug 12, 2002 at 11:44:24AM -0400, Lamar Owen wrote: > > keep discussing the issues involved, and I'll see what comes of it. I don't > > have an direct experience with the largefile support, and am learning as I go > > with this. > > I do have experience with both of these cases. We're hosted in a > managed-hosting environment, and one day one of the sysadmins there > must've remounted a filesystem without largefile support. Poof! I > started getting all sorts of strange pg_dump problems. It wasn't > hard to track down, except that I was initially surprised by the > errors, since I'd just _enabled_ large file support. And, what if he just remounted it read only. Mistakes will happen. That doesn't come across as being a strong argument to me. Besides, it's doubtful that a filesystem is going to be remounted while it's in use. Which means, these issues are going to be secondary to actual product use of the database. That is, either the system is working correctly or it's not. If it's not, guess it's not ready for production use. Furthermore, since fs mounting, if being done properly, is almost always a matter of automation, this particular class of error should be few and very far between. Wouldn't you rather answer people with, "remount your file system", rather than, recompile with such-n-such option enabled, reinstall. Oh ya, since you're re-installing a modified version of your database, probably a good paranoid option would be to back up and dump, just to be safe. Personally, I'd rather say, "remount". > There are, in any case, _lots_ of problems with these large files. > You not only need to make sure that pg_dump and friends can support > files bigger than 2G. You need to make sure that you can move the > files around (your file transfer commands), that you can compress the > files (how is gzip compiled? bzip2?), and even that you r backup > software takes the large file. In a few years, when all > installations are ready for this, it seems like it'd be a good idea > to turn this on by default. Right now, I think the risks are at > least as great as those incurred by telling people they need to > recompile. > All of those are SA issues. Shouldn't we leave that domain of issues for a SA to deal with rather than try to force a single view down someone's throat? Which, btw, results is creating more work for those that desire this feature. Greg
Attachment
On Mon, 2002-08-12 at 16:44, Lamar Owen wrote: > Interesting point. Before I could deploy RPMs with largefile support by > default, I would have to make sure it wouldn't silently break anything. So > keep discussing the issues involved, and I'll see what comes of it. I don't > have an direct experience with the largefile support, and am learning as I go > with this. > > Given that I have to make the source RPM's buildable on distributions that > might not have the largefile support available, so on those distributions the > support will have to be unavailable -- and the decision to build it or not to > build it must be automatable. I raised the question on the Debian developers' list. As far as I can see, the general feeling is that it won't break anything but will only work with kernel 2.4. It may break with 2.0, but 2.0 is no longer provided with Debian stable, so I don't mind that. The thread starts at http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2002/debian-devel-200208/msg00597.html I intend to enable it in the next version of the Debian packages (which will go into the unstable archive if this works for me) by adding -D_GNU_SOURCE -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 to CFLAGS for the entire build. One person said: However compiling with largefile support will change the size of off_t from 32 bits to 64 bits - if postgres uses off_t or anything else related to file offsets in a binary struct in one of the database files you will break stuff pretty heavily. I would not compile postgres with largefile support until it is officially supported by the postgres developers. but I cannot see that off_t is used in such a way. -- Oliver Elphick Oliver.Elphick@lfix.co.uk Isle of Wight, UK http://www.lfix.co.uk/oliver GPG: 1024D/3E1D0C1C: CA12 09E0 E8D5 8870 5839 932A 614D 4C34 3E1D 0C1C ======================================== "And he spake a parable unto them to this end, that men ought always to pray, and not to faint." Luke 18:1
On Mon, Aug 12, 2002 at 11:07:51AM -0500, Greg Copeland wrote:
> Many reasons. A DBA is not always the same thing as a developer (which
> means it's doubtful he's even going to know about needed options to pass
> -- if any).
This (and the "upgrade" argument) are simply documentation issues.
If you check the FAQ_Solaris, there's already a line in there which
tells you how to do it.
> Lastly, and perhaps the most obvious, SA and DBA bodies of knowledge are
> fairly distinct. You should not expect a DBA to function as a SA.
> Furthermore, SA and developer bodies of knowledge are also fairly
> distinct. You shouldn't expect a SA to know what compiler options he
> needs to use to compile software on his system. Especially for
> something as obscure as large file support.
It seems to me that a DBA who is running a system which produces 2
Gig dump files, and who can't compile Postgres, is in for a rocky
ride. Such a person needs at least a support contract, and in such a
case the supporting organisation would be able to provide the needed
binary.
Anyway, as I said, this really seems like the sort of thing that
mostly gets done when someone sends in a patch. So if it scratches
your itch . . .
> The distinction you make there is minor. A SA, should know and
> understand the capabilities of the systems he maintains (this is true
> even if the SA and DBA are one). This includes filesystem
> capabilities. A DBA, should only care about the system requirements and
> trust that the SA can deliver those capabilities. If a SA says, my
> filesystems can support very large files, installs postgres, the DBA
> should expect that match support in the database is already available.
> Woe is his surprise when he finds out that his postgres installation
> can't handle it?!
And it seems to me the distinction you're making is an invidious one.
I am sick to death of so-called experts who want to blather on about
this or that tuning parameter of [insert big piece of software here]
without knowing the slightest thing about the basic operating
environment. A DBA has responsibility to know a fair amount about
the platform in production. A DBA who doesn't is one day going to
find out what deep water is.
> result is pretty much the same thing as exceeding max file size. That
> is, if you attempt to read/write beyond what the filesystem can provide,
> you're still going to get an error. Is this really more dangerous than
> simply reading/writing to a file which exceeds max system capabilities?
Only if you were relying on it for backups, and suddenly your backups
don't work.
A
--
----
Andrew Sullivan 87 Mowat Avenue
Liberty RMS Toronto, Ontario Canada
<andrew@libertyrms.info> M6K 3E3
+1 416 646 3304 x110
On Mon, Aug 12, 2002 at 11:17:31AM -0500, Greg Copeland wrote:
>
> And, what if he just remounted it read only. Mistakes will happen.
> That doesn't come across as being a strong argument to me. Besides,
> it's doubtful that a filesystem is going to be remounted while it's in
> use. Which means, these issues are going to be secondary to actual
> product use of the database. That is, either the system is working
> correctly or it's not. If it's not, guess it's not ready for production
> use.
If it's already in production use, but was taken out briefly for
maintenance, and the supposed expert SAs do something dimwitted, then
it's broken, sure. The point I was trying to make is that the
symptoms one sees from breakage can be from many different places,
and so a glib "enable largefile support" remark hides an actual,
real-world complexity. Several steps can be broken, any one fof
which causes problems. Better to force the relevant admins to do the
work to set things up for an exotic feature, if it is desired.
There's nothing about Postgres itself that requires large file
support, so this is really a discussion about pg_dump. Using split
is more portable, in my view, and therefore preferable. You can also
use the native-compressed binary dump format, if you like one big
file. Both of those already work out of the box.
> > There are, in any case, _lots_ of problems with these large files.
> All of those are SA issues.
So is compiling the software correctly, if the distinction has any
meaning at all. When some mis-installed bit of software breaks, the
DBAs won't go running to the SAs. They'll ask here.
A
--
----
Andrew Sullivan 87 Mowat Avenue
Liberty RMS Toronto, Ontario Canada
<andrew@libertyrms.info> M6K 3E3
+1 416 646 3304 x110
On Mon, 2002-08-12 at 11:40, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Mon, Aug 12, 2002 at 11:07:51AM -0500, Greg Copeland wrote: > > > Many reasons. A DBA is not always the same thing as a developer (which > > means it's doubtful he's even going to know about needed options to pass > > -- if any). > > This (and the "upgrade" argument) are simply documentation issues. > If you check the FAQ_Solaris, there's already a line in there which > tells you how to do it. And? What's you're point. That somehow make it disappear? Even if it had been documented, it doesn't mean the documentation made it to the right hands or was obviously located. Just look at postgres' documentation in general. How often are people told to "read the code". Give me a break. You're argument is a very weak straw. > > > Lastly, and perhaps the most obvious, SA and DBA bodies of knowledge are > > fairly distinct. You should not expect a DBA to function as a SA. > > Furthermore, SA and developer bodies of knowledge are also fairly > > distinct. You shouldn't expect a SA to know what compiler options he > > needs to use to compile software on his system. Especially for > > something as obscure as large file support. > > It seems to me that a DBA who is running a system which produces 2 > Gig dump files, and who can't compile Postgres, is in for a rocky > ride. Such a person needs at least a support contract, and in such a > case the supporting organisation would be able to provide the needed > binary. LOL. Managing data and compiling applications have nothing to do with each other. Try, try again. You also don't seem to understand that this isn't as simple as recompile. It's not!!!!!!!!!!! We clear on this?! It's as simple as needing to KNOW that you have to recompile and then KNOWING you have to use a serious of obtuse options when compiling. In other words, you seemingly know everything you don't know which is more than the rest of us. > Anyway, as I said, this really seems like the sort of thing that > mostly gets done when someone sends in a patch. So if it scratches > your itch . . . > > > The distinction you make there is minor. A SA, should know and > > understand the capabilities of the systems he maintains (this is true > > even if the SA and DBA are one). This includes filesystem > > capabilities. A DBA, should only care about the system requirements and > > trust that the SA can deliver those capabilities. If a SA says, my > > filesystems can support very large files, installs postgres, the DBA > > should expect that match support in the database is already available. > > Woe is his surprise when he finds out that his postgres installation > > can't handle it?! > > And it seems to me the distinction you're making is an invidious one. > I am sick to death of so-called experts who want to blather on about > this or that tuning parameter of [insert big piece of software here] > without knowing the slightest thing about the basic operating > environment. A DBA has responsibility to know a fair amount about In other words, you can't have a subject matter expert unless he is an expert on every subject? Ya, right! > the platform in production. A DBA who doesn't is one day going to > find out what deep water is. Agreed...as it relates to the database. DBA's should have to know details about the filesystem...that's the job of a SA. You seem to be under the impression that SA = DBA or somehow a DBA is an SA with extra knowledge. While this is sometimes true, I can assure you this is not always the case. This is exactly why large companies often have DBAs in one department and SA in another. Their knowledge domains tend to uniquely differ. > > > result is pretty much the same thing as exceeding max file size. That > > is, if you attempt to read/write beyond what the filesystem can provide, > > you're still going to get an error. Is this really more dangerous than > > simply reading/writing to a file which exceeds max system capabilities? > > Only if you were relying on it for backups, and suddenly your backups > don't work. > Correction. "Suddenly" your backends never worked. Seems like it would of been caught prior to going into testing. Surely you're not suggesting that people place a system into production without having testing full life cycle? Back up testing is part of your life cycle right? Greg
Attachment
On Mon, 2002-08-12 at 11:48, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Mon, Aug 12, 2002 at 11:17:31AM -0500, Greg Copeland wrote: [snip] > > > There are, in any case, _lots_ of problems with these large files. > > > All of those are SA issues. > > So is compiling the software correctly, if the distinction has any > meaning at all. When some mis-installed bit of software breaks, the > DBAs won't go running to the SAs. They'll ask here. Either case, they're going to ask. You can give them a simple solution or you can make them run around and pull their hair out. You're also assuming that SA = developer. I can assure you it does not. I've met many an SA who's development experience was "make" and korn scripts. Expecting that he should know to use GNU_SOURCE and BITS=64, it a pretty far reach. Furthermore, you're even expecting that he knows that such a "recompile" fix even exists. Where do you think he's going to turn? The lists. That's right. Since he's going to contact the list or review a faq item anyways, doesn't it make sense to give them the easy way out (the the initiator and the mailing list)? IMO, powerful tools seem to always be capable enough to shoot your self in the foot. Why make pay special attention with this sole feature which doesn't really address it to begin with? Would you at least agree that "--enable-large-files", rather than CFLAGS=xxx, is a good idea as might well be banners and log entries stating that large file support has or has not been compiled in? Greg
Attachment
On Mon, Aug 12, 2002 at 11:30:36AM -0400, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > The problem is not just a system-level one, but a filesystem-level > one. Enabling 64 bits by default might be dangerous, because a DBA > might think "oh, it supports largefiles by default" and therefore not > notice that the filesystem itself is not mounted with largefile > support. But I suspect that the developers would welcome autoconfig > patches if someone offered them. Are there any filesystems in common use (not including windows ones) that don't support >32-bit filesizes? Linux (ext2) I know supports by default at least to 2TB (2^32 x 512bytes), probably much more. What about the BSDs? XFS? etc -- Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> http://svana.org/kleptog/ > There are 10 kinds of people in the world, those that can do binary > arithmetic and those that can't.
On Mon, 2002-08-12 at 18:41, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: > On Mon, Aug 12, 2002 at 11:30:36AM -0400, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > > The problem is not just a system-level one, but a filesystem-level > > one. Enabling 64 bits by default might be dangerous, because a DBA > > might think "oh, it supports largefiles by default" and therefore not > > notice that the filesystem itself is not mounted with largefile > > support. But I suspect that the developers would welcome autoconfig > > patches if someone offered them. > > Are there any filesystems in common use (not including windows ones) that > don't support >32-bit filesizes? > > Linux (ext2) I know supports by default at least to 2TB (2^32 x 512bytes), > probably much more. What about the BSDs? XFS? etc > Ext2 & 3 should be okay. XFS (very sure) and JFS (reasonably sure) should also be okay...IIRC. NFS and SMB are probably problematic, but I can't see anyone really wanting to do this. Maybe some of the clustering file systems (GFS, etc) might have problems??? I'm not sure where reiserfs falls. I *think* it's not a problem but something tingles in the back of my brain that there may be problems lurking... Just for the heck of it, I did some searching. Found these for starters: http://www.suse.de/~aj/linux_lfs.html. http://www.gelato.unsw.edu.au/~peterc/lfs.html http://ftp.sas.com/standards/large.file/ So, in a nut shell, most modern (2.4.x+) x86 Linux systems should be able to handle large files. Enjoy, Greg
Attachment
Andrew Sullivan wrote: >On Sat, Aug 10, 2002 at 09:21:07AM -0500, Greg Copeland wrote: > >>I'm actually amazed that postgres isn't already using large file >>support. Especially for tools like dump. >> > >Except it would only cause confusion if you ran such a program on a >system that didn't itself have largefile support. Better to make the >admin turn all these things on on purpose, until everyone is running >64 bit systems everywhere. > >A > Ah yes ... extremely good point - I had not considered that. I am pretty sure all reasonably current (kernel >= 2.4) Linux distros support largefile out of the box - so it should be safe for them. Other operating systems where 64 bit file access can be disabled or unconfigured require more care - possibly (sigh) 2 binary RPMS with a distinctive 32 and 64 bit label ...(I think the "big O" does this for Solaris). Cheers Mark
On Tue, 2002-08-13 at 03:57, Greg Copeland wrote: > > Are there any filesystems in common use (not including windows ones) that > > don't support >32-bit filesizes? > > > > Linux (ext2) I know supports by default at least to 2TB (2^32 x 512bytes), > > probably much more. What about the BSDs? XFS? etc > > > > Ext2 & 3 should be okay. XFS (very sure) and JFS (reasonably sure) > should also be okay...IIRC. NFS and SMB are probably problematic, but I > can't see anyone really wanting to do this. Hmm. Whereas I can't see many people putting their database files on an NFS mount, I can readily see them using pg_dump to one, and pg_dump is the program where large files are really likely to be needed. -- Oliver Elphick Oliver.Elphick@lfix.co.uk Isle of Wight, UK http://www.lfix.co.uk/oliver GPG: 1024D/3E1D0C1C: CA12 09E0 E8D5 8870 5839 932A 614D 4C34 3E1D 0C1C ======================================== "Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man." Luke 21:36
On Tue, 2002-08-13 at 03:42, Mark Kirkwood wrote: > Andrew Sullivan wrote: > > >On Sat, Aug 10, 2002 at 09:21:07AM -0500, Greg Copeland wrote: > > > >>I'm actually amazed that postgres isn't already using large file > >>support. Especially for tools like dump. > >> > > > >Except it would only cause confusion if you ran such a program on a > >system that didn't itself have largefile support. Better to make the > >admin turn all these things on on purpose, until everyone is running > >64 bit systems everywhere. > > > >A > > > Ah yes ... extremely good point - I had not considered that. > > I am pretty sure all reasonably current (kernel >= 2.4) Linux distros > support largefile out of the box - so it should be safe for them. > > Other operating systems where 64 bit file access can be disabled or > unconfigured require more care - possibly (sigh) 2 binary RPMS with a > distinctive 32 and 64 bit label ...(I think the "big O" does this for > Solaris). Then, of course, there are systems where Largefiles support is a filesystem by filesystem (read mountpoint by mountpoint) option (E.G. OpenUNIX). I think this is going to be a pandoras box. -- Larry Rosenman http://www.lerctr.org/~ler Phone: +1 972-414-9812 E-Mail: ler@lerctr.org US Mail: 1905 Steamboat Springs Drive, Garland, TX 75044-6749
On Tue, Aug 13, 2002 at 08:02:05AM -0500, Larry Rosenman wrote: > On Tue, 2002-08-13 at 03:42, Mark Kirkwood wrote: > > Other operating systems where 64 bit file access can be disabled or > > unconfigured require more care - possibly (sigh) 2 binary RPMS with a > > distinctive 32 and 64 bit label ...(I think the "big O" does this for > > Solaris). > Then, of course, there are systems where Largefiles support is a > filesystem by filesystem (read mountpoint by mountpoint) option (E.G. > OpenUNIX). > > I think this is going to be a pandoras box. I don't understand. Why would you want large-file support enabled on a per-filesystem basis? All your system programs would have to support the lowest common denomitor (ie, with large file support). Is it to make the kernel enforce a limit for the purposes of compatability? I'd suggest making it as simple as --enable-large-files and make it default in a year or two. -- Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> http://svana.org/kleptog/ > There are 10 kinds of people in the world, those that can do binary > arithmetic and those that can't.
Hi, what do you think about creating 2 binaries for pg_dump (I think this is the program, which needs large file support most). One without large file support (maybe named pg_dump, so this is the default) and one with large file support (named pg_dumpl). So the beginner-user dont get any trouble (you shouldn't be beginner, if you use >2GB data) and for those, who know what they do can use large files if needed. Tommi
If all the 2GB problem is only about pg_dump may I suggest a work-around?
pg_dump | cat >dumpfile.sql
works without problems if "cat" is largefile-enabled; this puts the burden
of supplying largefile-enabled binaries on the operating system
distributor; similiar constructions work for all other postgres tools
Apart from this I think it is perfectly safe to enable largefile
compilation on linux unconditionally; the only major linux filesystem (I'm
discounting VFAT and the like here) that cannot handle files >2GB is NFSv2
(but NFSv3 works), the error code and signal you get from writing a too
large file (EFBIG "File too large" and SIGXFSZ "File size limit exceeded")
should give the administrator prominent hints what might be wrong
Note that in Debian Woody all system binaries (cp, cat etc.) are compiled
with largefile support enabled, I think this applies to all other
distributions as well
Regards
--
Helge Bahmann <bahmann@math.tu-freiberg.de> /| \__
The past: Smart users in front of dumb terminals /_|____\
_/\ | __)
$ ./configure \\ \|__/__|
checking whether build environment is sane... yes \\/___/ |
checking for AIX... no (we already did this) |
On Tue, Aug 13, 2002 at 05:19:31PM +0200, Helge Bahmann wrote:
> If all the 2GB problem is only about pg_dump may I suggest a work-around?
>
> pg_dump | cat >dumpfile.sql
>
> works without problems if "cat" is largefile-enabled;
I had that break on Solaris. Makes no sense to me, either, but it
most certainly did.
A
--
----
Andrew Sullivan 87 Mowat Avenue
Liberty RMS Toronto, Ontario Canada
<andrew@libertyrms.info> M6K 3E3
+1 416 646 3304 x110
On Tue, Aug 13, 2002 at 05:19:31PM +0200, Helge Bahmann wrote: > If all the 2GB problem is only about pg_dump may I suggest a work-around? > > pg_dump | cat >dumpfile.sql The only reason to care for large file support is if pg_dump will be seeking and telling on files it creates, not postgresql's data files, as those will be split up by postgresql at the 1 Gb boundary. I very much doubt pg_dump would be seeking or telling on stdout, as it may be a pipe, a tty, a socket, etc., so you can skip the cat and just do pg_dump > dumpfile.sql. Oh, and cat doesn't need to be largefile-enabled as it never seeks in files, as neither does pg_dump, as it doesn't, or shouldn't (I see no need for), seek in the output file. I really see no point in this discussion. Will the backend ever seek or tell any file it uses? Its data files will be smaller than 1 Gb, so no problem there. The only worry would be the COPY, but that doesn't need those two functions, does it? Same for any frontend tool. Does it need the seek and tell? I'll rather have then eliminated when not really needed, than having to worry about filesystem and OS support. The only thing to worry would be when opening the large files, but a simple rule in autoconf will set the needed #define in the headers... Regards, Luciano Roha > -- > Helge Bahmann <bahmann@math.tu-freiberg.de> /| \__ > The past: Smart users in front of dumb terminals /_|____\ > _/\ | __) > $ ./configure \\ \|__/__| > checking whether build environment is sane... yes \\/___/ | > checking for AIX... no (we already did this) | > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? > > http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html -- Consciousness: that annoying time between naps.
On Tue, Aug 13, 2002 at 11:31:15AM -0400, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Tue, Aug 13, 2002 at 05:19:31PM +0200, Helge Bahmann wrote: > > If all the 2GB problem is only about pg_dump may I suggest a work-around? > > > > pg_dump | cat >dumpfile.sql > > > > works without problems if "cat" is largefile-enabled; > > I had that break on Solaris. Makes no sense to me, either, but it > most certainly did. Does the shell have large file support? The file descriptor for dumpfile.sql is opened by the shell, not by cat. Cat just reads a few bytes from stdin and writes a few bytes to stdout, it wouldn't break large file support for itself. Regards, Luciano Rocha -- Consciousness: that annoying time between naps.
> I very much doubt pg_dump would be seeking or telling on stdout, as it may
> be a pipe, a tty, a socket, etc., so you can skip the cat and just do
> pg_dump > dumpfile.sql.
>
> Oh, and cat doesn't need to be largefile-enabled as it never seeks in
> files, as neither does pg_dump, as it doesn't, or shouldn't (I see no need
> for), seek in the output file.
no and no, this will *not* work; the file has to be opened with the flag
O_LARGEFILE, otherwise the kernel will refuse to write files larger than
2GB. Really.
Regards
--
Helge Bahmann <bahmann@math.tu-freiberg.de> /| \__
The past: Smart users in front of dumb terminals /_|____\
_/\ | __)
$ ./configure \\ \|__/__|
checking whether build environment is sane... yes \\/___/ |
checking for AIX... no (we already did this) |
Oliver Elphick wrote: > On Tue, 2002-08-13 at 03:57, Greg Copeland wrote: >>Ext2 & 3 should be okay. XFS (very sure) and JFS (reasonably sure) >>should also be okay...IIRC. NFS and SMB are probably problematic, but I >>can't see anyone really wanting to do this. > > Hmm. Whereas I can't see many people putting their database files on an > NFS mount, I can readily see them using pg_dump to one, and pg_dump is > the program where large files are really likely to be needed. I wouldn't totally discount using NFS for large databases. Believe it or not, with an Oracle database and a Network Appliance for storage, NFS is exactly what is used. We've found that we get better performance with a (properly tuned) NFS mounted NetApp volume than with attached storage on our HPUX box with several 100+GB databases. Joe
On Tue, Aug 13, 2002 at 05:59:33PM +0200, Helge Bahmann wrote: > > I very much doubt pg_dump would be seeking or telling on stdout, as it may > > be a pipe, a tty, a socket, etc., so you can skip the cat and just do > > pg_dump > dumpfile.sql. > > > > Oh, and cat doesn't need to be largefile-enabled as it never seeks in > > files, as neither does pg_dump, as it doesn't, or shouldn't (I see no need > > for), seek in the output file. > > no and no, this will *not* work; the file has to be opened with the flag > O_LARGEFILE, otherwise the kernel will refuse to write files larger than > 2GB. Really. Yeah, and cat will *never* open any file to write to, anyway. I do say at the end: "The only thing to worry would be when opening the large files, but a simple rule in autoconf will set the needed #define in the headers..." -- Consciousness: that annoying time between naps.
On Tue, Aug 13, 2002 at 04:53:47PM +0100, strange@nsk.yi.org wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 13, 2002 at 11:31:15AM -0400, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 13, 2002 at 05:19:31PM +0200, Helge Bahmann wrote:
> > > If all the 2GB problem is only about pg_dump may I suggest a work-around?
> > >
> > > pg_dump | cat >dumpfile.sql
> > >
> > > works without problems if "cat" is largefile-enabled;
> >
> > I had that break on Solaris. Makes no sense to me, either, but it
> > most certainly did.
>
> Does the shell have large file support?
Yep. It was an error from pg_dump that claimed it couldn't keep
writing. Never seen anything like it. I'm sure I did something
wrong somewhere, I just didn't see what it was. (In the end, I just
recompiled pg_dump.) But _something_ along the chain didn't have
large file support. It's these sorts of little gotchas that I was
thinking of when I said that just turning on large files is not that
simple: you really need to know that _everything_ is ready, or the
errors you get will surprise you.
A
--
----
Andrew Sullivan 87 Mowat Avenue
Liberty RMS Toronto, Ontario Canada
<andrew@libertyrms.info> M6K 3E3
+1 416 646 3304 x110
On Tue, 2002-08-13 at 17:11, Rod Taylor wrote: > > I wouldn't totally discount using NFS for large databases. Believe it or > > not, with an Oracle database and a Network Appliance for storage, NFS is > > exactly what is used. We've found that we get better performance with a > > (properly tuned) NFS mounted NetApp volume than with attached storage on > > our HPUX box with several 100+GB databases. > > We've also tended to keep logs local on raid 1 and the data on a pair of > custered netapps for PostgreSQL. But large file support is not really an issue for the database itself, since table files are split at 1Gb. Unless that changes, the database is not a problem. -- Oliver Elphick Oliver.Elphick@lfix.co.uk Isle of Wight, UK http://www.lfix.co.uk/oliver GPG: 1024D/3E1D0C1C: CA12 09E0 E8D5 8870 5839 932A 614D 4C34 3E1D 0C1C ======================================== "Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man." Luke 21:36
Oliver Elphick <olly@lfix.co.uk> writes:
> But large file support is not really an issue for the database itself,
> since table files are split at 1Gb. Unless that changes, the database
> is not a problem.
I see no really good reason to change the file-split logic. The places
where the backend might possibly need large-file support are
* backend-side COPY to or from a large file
* postmaster log to stderr --- does this fail if log output
exceeds 2G?
There might be some other similar issues, but that's all that comes to
mind offhand.
On a system where building with large-file support is reasonably
standard, I agree that PG should be built that way too. Where it's
not so standard, I agree with Andrew Sullivan's concerns ...
regards, tom lane
On Tue, Aug 13, 2002 at 01:04:02PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> I see no really good reason to change the file-split logic. The places
> where the backend might possibly need large-file support are
> * backend-side COPY to or from a large file
I _think_ this causes a crash. At least, I _think_ that's what
caused it one day (I was doing one of those jackhammer-the-server
sorts of tests, and it was one of about 50 things I was doing at the
time, to see if I could make it fall over. I did, but not where I
expected, and way beyond any real load we could anticipate).
> * postmaster log to stderr --- does this fail if log output
> exceeds 2G?
Yes, definitely, at least on Solaris.
A
--
----
Andrew Sullivan 87 Mowat Avenue
Liberty RMS Toronto, Ontario Canada
<andrew@libertyrms.info> M6K 3E3
+1 416 646 3304 x110
On Tue, Aug 13, 2002 at 01:04:02PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > On a system where building with large-file support is reasonably > standard, I agree that PG should be built that way too. Where it's > not so standard, I agree with Andrew Sullivan's concerns ... What do you mean by "standard"? That only some filesystems are supported? In Linux the vfat filesystem doesn't support largefiles, so the behaviour is the same as if the application didn't specify O_LARGEFILE to open(2): As Helge Bahmann pointed out, "kernel will refuse to write files larger than 2GB". In current Linux, a signal (SIGXFSZ) is sent to the application that then dumps core. So, the use of O_LARGEFILE is nullified by the lack of support by the filesystem, but no problem is introduced by the application supporting largefiles, it already existed before. All the crashes and problems presented on these lists occur when largefile support isn't compiled, I didn't see one occuring from any application having the support, but not the filesystem. (Your "not so standard support"?) The changes to postgresql doesn't seem complicated, I can try to make them myself (fcntl on stdout, stdin; add check to autoconf; etc.) if no one else volunteers. Regards, Luciano Rocha -- Consciousness: that annoying time between naps.
On Tue, Aug 13, 2002 at 06:45:59PM +0100, strange@nsk.yi.org wrote:
> support isn't compiled, I didn't see one occuring from any application
> having the support, but not the filesystem. (Your "not so standard
Wrong. The symptom is _exactly the same_ if the program doesn't have
the support, the filesystem doesn't have the support, or both, at
least on Solaris. I've checked.
A
--
----
Andrew Sullivan 87 Mowat Avenue
Liberty RMS Toronto, Ontario Canada
<andrew@libertyrms.info> M6K 3E3
+1 416 646 3304 x110
On Tue, 2002-08-13 at 12:45, strange@nsk.yi.org wrote: > On Tue, Aug 13, 2002 at 01:04:02PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > On a system where building with large-file support is reasonably > > standard, I agree that PG should be built that way too. Where it's > > not so standard, I agree with Andrew Sullivan's concerns ... > > What do you mean by "standard"? That only some filesystems are supported? > In Linux the vfat filesystem doesn't support largefiles, so the behaviour > is the same as if the application didn't specify O_LARGEFILE to open(2): > As Helge Bahmann pointed out, "kernel will refuse to write files larger than > 2GB". In current Linux, a signal (SIGXFSZ) is sent to the application > that then dumps core. > > > So, the use of O_LARGEFILE is nullified by the lack of support by the > filesystem, but no problem is introduced by the application supporting > largefiles, it already existed before. > Thank you. That's a point that I previously pointed out...you just did a much better job of it. Specifically, want to stress that enabling large file support is not dangerous. Greg
Attachment
On Tue, 2002-08-13 at 12:04, Tom Lane wrote: > On a system where building with large-file support is reasonably > standard, I agree that PG should be built that way too. Where it's > not so standard, I agree with Andrew Sullivan's concerns ... Agreed. This is what I originally asked for. Greg
Attachment
On Tue, Aug 13, 2002 at 02:09:07PM -0400, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Tue, Aug 13, 2002 at 06:45:59PM +0100, strange@nsk.yi.org wrote: > > > support isn't compiled, I didn't see one occuring from any application > > having the support, but not the filesystem. (Your "not so standard > > Wrong. The symptom is _exactly the same_ if the program doesn't have > the support, the filesystem doesn't have the support, or both, at > least on Solaris. I've checked. ?? My point is that: Having postgresql the support doesn't bring NEW errors. I never said postgresql would automagically gain support on filesystems that don't support largfiles, I said no one mentioned an error caused by postgresql *having* the support, but *not the filesystem*. Maybe I wasn't clear, but I meant *new* errors. As it seams, adding support to largefiles doesn't break anything. Regards, Luciano Rocha -- Consciousness: that annoying time between naps.