As far as I understand, the idea is WAL archive with predictable size
("N checkpoints" is not predictable size), which can be safely removed
(e.g. if free disk space is urgently needed) without losing crash recovery.
No-archiver mode makes sense as well - it should be faster than current
mode (at least, on filesystems different from XFS). It will be useful
for users who has lots of disk space and want to gain maximum throughput.
On 13.02.2018 23:14, Dmitry Pavlov wrote:
Hi, I didn't get the point why it may be required to separate WAL work, WAL
uncheckpointed archive (some work outside segment rotation) and
checkpointed archive (which is better to be compressed using Ignite new
feature - WAL compressor).
Please consider new no-archiver mode implemented recently.
If archive folder confuses end user, grid admin may set up this mode (all
segments is placed in 1 directory) instead of introducing folders.
вт, 13 февр. 2018 г. в 22:11, Ivan Rakov <ivan.glu...@gmail.com>:
I think, I got the point now.
There's no need to copy files from "temp" to "archive" dir - we can just
move them, which is a constant-time operation.
Change is quite complex (we need to synchronize all movings thoroughly
to avoid ruining existing WAL read iterators), but feasible.
On 13.02.2018 22:06, Ivan Rakov wrote:
This will work. However, I expect performance degradation with this
change. Disk storage has a limited number of I/O operations per second
on hardware level. List of already existing disk I/O activities
(writing to WAL work dir, copying from WAL work dir to WAL archive
dir, writing partition files during checkpoint) will be updated with a
new one - copying from WAL work dir to temp dir.
On 13.02.2018 21:35, Yakov Zhdanov wrote:
I do not want to create new files. As far as I know, now we copy
to archive dir before they get checkpointed. What I suggest is to
to a temp dir under wal directory and then move to archive. In my
understanding at the time we copy the files to a temp folder all
them are already fsynced.
2018-02-13 21:29 GMT+03:00 Ivan Rakov <ivan.glu...@gmail.com>:
I see the only one problem with your suggestion - number of
"uncheckpointed" segments is potentially unlimited.
Right now we have limited number (10) of file segments with immutable
names in WAL "work" directory. We have to keep this approach due to
bug in XFS - fsync time is nearly twice bigger for recently created
On 13.02.2018 21:22, Yakov Zhdanov wrote:
I meant we still will be copying segment once and then will be
archive which should not affect file system much.
2018-02-13 21:19 GMT+03:00 Yakov Zhdanov <yzhda...@apache.org>:
I remember we had some confusing behavior for WAL archive when
segments were required for successful recovery.
Is issue still present?
If yes, what if we copy "uncheckpointed" segments to a directory
directory and then move the segments to archive after checkpoint?