Horton

Re: WIP/PoC for parallel backup

Asif Rehman <asifr.rehman@gmail.com>

View thread
From: Asif Rehman <asifr.rehman@gmail.com>
To: Jeevan Ladhe <jeevan.ladhe@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>, Jeevan Chalke <jeevan.chalke@enterprisedb.com>, Kashif Zeeshan <kashif.zeeshan@enterprisedb.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi <rajkumar.raghuwanshi@enterprisedb.com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Date: 2020-04-21T10:16:33Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. Fix failures in incremental_sort due to number of workers

  2. In jsonb_plpython.c, suppress warning message from gcc 10.

  3. Fix minor problems with non-exclusive backup cleanup.

On Tue, 21 Apr 2020 at 2:36 PM, Jeevan Ladhe <jeevan.ladhe@enterprisedb.com>
wrote:

> Hi Asif,
>
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 1:00 PM Asif Rehman <asifr.rehman@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I did some tests a while back, and here are the results. The tests were
>> done to simulate
>> a live database environment using pgbench.
>>
>> machine configuration used for this test:
>> Instance Type:    t2.xlarge
>> Volume Type  :    io1
>> Memory (MiB) :    16384
>> vCPU #           :    4
>> Architecture    :    X86_64
>> IOP                 :    16000
>> Database Size (GB) :    102
>>
>> The setup consist of 3 machines.
>> - one for database instances
>> - one for pg_basebackup client and
>> - one for pgbench with some parallel workers, simulating SELECT loads.
>>
>>                                    basebackup | 4 workers | 8 Workers  |
>> 16 workers
>> Backup Duration(Min):       69.25    |  20.44      | 19.86          |
>> 20.15
>> (pgbench running with 50 parallel client simulating SELECT load)
>>
>
>
> Well that looks a bit strange. All 4, 8 and 16 workers backup
> configurations
> seem to have taken the same time. Is it because the machine CPUs are
> only 4? In that case did you try to run with 2-workers and compare that
> with 4-workers time?
>
> Also, just to clarify and be sure - was there anything else running on any
> of
> these 3 machines while the backup was in progress.
>

The tests were performed only for 4, 8 and 16 at the time and there was
nothing else running on any of the machines.


> Regards,
> Jeevan Ladhe
>
>
>> Backup Duration(Min):       154.75   |  49.28     | 45.27         | 20.35
>> (pgbench running with 100 parallel client simulating SELECT load)
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 9:27 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 8:07 PM Asif Rehman <asifr.rehman@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I forgot to make a check for no-manifest. Fixed. Attached is the
>>>> updated patch.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Have we done any performance testing with this patch to see the
>>> benefits? If so, can you point me to the results? If not, then can we
>>> perform some tests on large backups to see the benefits of this patch/idea?
>>>
>>> --
>>> With Regards,
>>> Amit Kapila.
>>> EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> --
>> Asif Rehman
>> Highgo Software (Canada/China/Pakistan)
>> URL : www.highgo.ca
>>
>> --
--
Asif Rehman
Highgo Software (Canada/China/Pakistan)
URL : www.highgo.ca