Re: [HACKERS] PG on NFS may be just a bad idea
On Mon, 2007-10-01 at 19:25 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: http://blogs.netapp.com/dave/2007/08/oracle-optimize.html Not a whole lot of technical content there, but pretty interesting nonetheless. I *think* that the issues we're seeing are largely in the NFS client-side kernel code, so bypassing that stack as Oracle is doing might eliminate the problem. Of course, there's a sizable amount of code to be written to do that ... Yeh, that would take a while. I thought of another reason to do that also. If you put a tablespace on an NFS mount and the remote server crashes, it sounds like there could be a window of potential data loss. We could guard against that by recovering the tablespace, but we don't do that unless the local server crashes. So having your own NFS client would allow you to tell that the link had dropped and needed to be recovered. -- Simon Riggs 2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [HACKERS] PG on NFS may be just a bad idea
Alvaro Herrera wrote: Tom Lane wrote: Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: http://blogs.netapp.com/dave/2007/08/oracle-optimize.html Not a whole lot of technical content there, but pretty interesting nonetheless. I *think* that the issues we're seeing are largely in the NFS client-side kernel code, so bypassing that stack as Oracle is doing might eliminate the problem. Of course, there's a sizable amount of code to be written to do that ... Yeah. Next step we will be writing our own malloc. I assume there should be a ;-) in there because we already have our own malloc (palloc). -- Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://postgres.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
Re: [HACKERS] PG on NFS may be just a bad idea
Bruce Momjian wrote: Alvaro Herrera wrote: Tom Lane wrote: Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: http://blogs.netapp.com/dave/2007/08/oracle-optimize.html Not a whole lot of technical content there, but pretty interesting nonetheless. I *think* that the issues we're seeing are largely in the NFS client-side kernel code, so bypassing that stack as Oracle is doing might eliminate the problem. Of course, there's a sizable amount of code to be written to do that ... Yeah. Next step we will be writing our own malloc. I assume there should be a ;-) in there because we already have our own malloc (palloc). Yeah, some sort of smiley should be there. But what I'm talking about is rewriting the underlying memory allocation mechanism, just like we would be rewriting the NFS client. palloc uses malloc underneath. My thought is to replace that with sbrk, mmap or something like that. Not very portable though, a lot of work, and most likely not nearly enough benefits. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.PlanetPostgreSQL.org/ Nadie esta tan esclavizado como el que se cree libre no siendolo (Goethe) ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
Re: [HACKERS] PG on NFS may be just a bad idea
On Mon, 2007-10-08 at 16:50 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: palloc uses malloc underneath. My thought is to replace that with sbrk, mmap or something like that. Not very portable though, a lot of work, and most likely not nearly enough benefits. Yeah, I agree this isn't likely to be a win in the general case. However, it would be interesting to explore a specialized allocator for short-lived memory contexts, where we don't care about having an effective pfree(). If the context is going to be reset or deleted shortly anyway, we could probably optimize and simplify palloc() by skipping free space accounting and then make pfree() a no-op. I recall Tom mentioning something to this effect a few months back... -Neil ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
Re: [HACKERS] PG on NFS may be just a bad idea
Tom, Maybe we need to actively discourage people from running Postgres against NFS-mounted data directories. Shane Kerr's paper cited above mentions some other rather scary properties, including O_EXCL file creation not really working properly. Wouldn't you be describing a Linux-specific issue, though? And possibly kernel-specific? It's hard to reconcile this with the real-world performance of PostgreSQL on NFS, which is happening all over the place. Most notably, Joe Conway's 20,000 txn/sec. I *do* think it's an accurate statement that if you're going to use Postgres, or any other OLTP database, on NFS you'd better have access to a NAS expert. But to say that it's a bad idea even if you have expert help is probably going to far. --Josh Berkus ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [HACKERS] PG on NFS may be just a bad idea
Josh Berkus [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Maybe we need to actively discourage people from running Postgres against NFS-mounted data directories. It's hard to reconcile this with the real-world performance of PostgreSQL on NFS, which is happening all over the place. Most notably, Joe Conway's 20,000 txn/sec. This is not a question of performance, it is a question of whether you are willing to tolerate corner-case misbehaviors. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [HACKERS] PG on NFS may be just a bad idea
On Mon, 2007-10-01 at 10:13 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: Maybe we need to actively discourage people from running Postgres against NFS-mounted data directories. Shane Kerr's paper cited above mentions some other rather scary properties, including O_EXCL file creation not really working properly. Wouldn't you be describing a Linux-specific issue, though? And possibly kernel-specific? Possibly, though if you have any specific refutations of the Kerr paper then it would be a good idea to air them. It isn't enough to just hint some exist. It's hard to reconcile this with the real-world performance of PostgreSQL on NFS, which is happening all over the place. Most notably, Joe Conway's 20,000 txn/sec. I *do* think it's an accurate statement that if you're going to use Postgres, or any other OLTP database, on NFS you'd better have access to a NAS expert. But to say that it's a bad idea even if you have expert help is probably going to far. I can see many papers on database performance on NFS, but I don't see any discussion of potential reliability concerns. If anybody sits near an NAS expert, it would be great to have that discussion. I have found some comments that other databases require specific configuration settings to ensure efficient and correct usage of NFS to access NAS storage devices. -- Simon Riggs 2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [HACKERS] PG on NFS may be just a bad idea
On Mon, 2007-10-01 at 19:36 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: I *do* think it's an accurate statement that if you're going to use Postgres, or any other OLTP database, on NFS you'd better have access to a NAS expert. But to say that it's a bad idea even if you have expert help is probably going to far. I can see many papers on database performance on NFS, but I don't see any discussion of potential reliability concerns. If anybody sits near an NAS expert, it would be great to have that discussion. http://blogs.netapp.com/dave/2007/08/oracle-optimize.html -- Simon Riggs 2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: [HACKERS] PG on NFS may be just a bad idea
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: http://blogs.netapp.com/dave/2007/08/oracle-optimize.html Not a whole lot of technical content there, but pretty interesting nonetheless. I *think* that the issues we're seeing are largely in the NFS client-side kernel code, so bypassing that stack as Oracle is doing might eliminate the problem. Of course, there's a sizable amount of code to be written to do that ... regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [HACKERS] PG on NFS may be just a bad idea
Tom Lane wrote: Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: http://blogs.netapp.com/dave/2007/08/oracle-optimize.html Not a whole lot of technical content there, but pretty interesting nonetheless. I *think* that the issues we're seeing are largely in the NFS client-side kernel code, so bypassing that stack as Oracle is doing might eliminate the problem. Of course, there's a sizable amount of code to be written to do that ... Yeah. Next step we will be writing our own malloc. -- Alvaro Herrerahttp://www.CommandPrompt.com/ PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [HACKERS] PG on NFS may be just a bad idea
Tom Lane wrote: If this is what's happening I'd claim it is a kernel bug, but seeing that I see it on FC6 and Miya sees it on Solaris 10, it would be a bug widespread enough that we'd not be likely to get it killed off soon. I think my colleague was solving similar issue in JavaDB. IIRC the problem is in how NFS works and conclusion was do not use JavaDB (Derby) on NFS. I forwarded this issue to our NFS gurus and I will send updated information. Zdenek ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
