Horton

Re: WIP/PoC for parallel backup

Jeevan Ladhe <jeevan.ladhe@enterprisedb.com>

View thread
From: Jeevan Ladhe <jeevan.ladhe@enterprisedb.com>
To: asifr.rehman@gmail.com
Cc: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>, Kashif Zeeshan <kashif.zeeshan@enterprisedb.com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi <rajkumar.raghuwanshi@enterprisedb.com>, Jeevan Chalke <jeevan.chalke@enterprisedb.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2020-04-21T09:35:38Z
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.

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.

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
>
>