Обсуждение: Bottlenecks with large number of relation segment files
Hello, I am looking the effect of having large number of relation files under $PGDATA/base/ (for example, in cases where I choose lower segment size using --with-segsize). Consider a case where I am working with a large database with large relations, for example a database similar in size to what "pgbench -i -s 3500" would be. May the routines in fd.c become bottleneck with a large number of concurrent connections to above database, say something like "pgbench -j 8 -c 128"? Is there any other place I should be paying attention to? -- Amit Langote
Hi Amit, (2013/08/05 15:23), Amit Langote wrote: > May the routines in fd.c become bottleneck with a large number of > concurrent connections to above database, say something like "pgbench > -j 8 -c 128"? Is there any other place I should be paying attention > to? What kind of file system did you use? When we open file, ext3 or ext4 file system seems to sequential search inode for opening file in file directory. And PostgreSQL limit FD 1000 per process. It seems too small. Please change src/backend/storage/file/fd.c at "max_files_per_process = 1000;" If we rewrite it, We can change limit of FD per process. I have already created fix-patch about this problem in postgresql.conf, and will submit next CF. Regards, -- Mitsumasa KONDO NTT Open Source Software Center
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 5:01 PM, KONDO Mitsumasa <kondo.mitsumasa@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: > Hi Amit, > > > (2013/08/05 15:23), Amit Langote wrote: >> >> May the routines in fd.c become bottleneck with a large number of >> concurrent connections to above database, say something like "pgbench >> -j 8 -c 128"? Is there any other place I should be paying attention >> to? > > What kind of file system did you use? > > When we open file, ext3 or ext4 file system seems to sequential search inode > for opening file in file directory. > And PostgreSQL limit FD 1000 per process. It seems too small. > Please change src/backend/storage/file/fd.c at "max_files_per_process = > 1000;" > If we rewrite it, We can change limit of FD per process. I have already > created fix-patch about this problem in postgresql.conf, and will submit > next CF. Thank you for replying Kondo-san. The file system is ext4. So, within the limits of max_files_per_process, the routines of file.c should not become a bottleneck? -- Amit Langote
(2013/08/05 17:14), Amit Langote wrote: > So, within the limits of max_files_per_process, the routines of file.c > should not become a bottleneck? It may not become bottleneck. 1 FD consumes 160 byte in 64bit system. See linux manual at "epoll". Regards, -- Mitsumasa KONDO NTT Open Source Software Center
On 2013-08-05 18:40:10 +0900, KONDO Mitsumasa wrote: > (2013/08/05 17:14), Amit Langote wrote: > >So, within the limits of max_files_per_process, the routines of file.c > >should not become a bottleneck? > It may not become bottleneck. > 1 FD consumes 160 byte in 64bit system. See linux manual at "epoll". That limit is about max_user_watches, not the general cost of an fd. Afair they take up a a good more than that. Also, there are global limits to the amount of filehandles that can simultaneously opened on a system. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> ... Also, there are global
> limits to the amount of filehandles that can simultaneously opened on a
> system.
Yeah. Raising max_files_per_process puts you at serious risk that
everything else on the box will start falling over for lack of available
FD slots. (PG itself tends to cope pretty well, since fd.c knows it can
drop some other open file when it gets EMFILE.) We more often have to
tell people to lower that limit than to raise it.
regards, tom lane
(2013/08/05 19:28), Andres Freund wrote: > On 2013-08-05 18:40:10 +0900, KONDO Mitsumasa wrote: >> (2013/08/05 17:14), Amit Langote wrote: >>> So, within the limits of max_files_per_process, the routines of file.c >>> should not become a bottleneck? >> It may not become bottleneck. >> 1 FD consumes 160 byte in 64bit system. See linux manual at "epoll". > > That limit is about max_user_watches, not the general cost of an > fd. Afair they take up a a good more than that. OH! It's my mistake... I retry to read about FD in linux manual at "proc". It seems that a process having FD can see in /proc/[pid]/fd/. And it seems symbolic link and consume 64byte memory per FD. Regards, -- Mitsumasa KONDO NTT Open Source Software Center
(2013/08/05 21:23), Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> writes: >> ... Also, there are global >> limits to the amount of filehandles that can simultaneously opened on a >> system. > > Yeah. Raising max_files_per_process puts you at serious risk that > everything else on the box will start falling over for lack of available > FD slots. Is it Really? When I use hadoop like NOSQL storage, I set large number of FD. Actually, Hadoop Wiki is writing following. http://wiki.apache.org/hadoop/TooManyOpenFiles > Too Many Open Files > > You can see this on Linux machines in client-side applications, server code or even in test runs. > It is caused by per-process limits on the number of files that a single user/process can have open, which was introducedin the 2.6.27 kernel. The default value, 128, was chosen because "that should be enough". > > In Hadoop, it isn't. ~ > ulimit -n 8192 Regards, -- Mitsumasa KONDO NTT Open Source Software Center
On 2013-08-06 19:19:41 +0900, KONDO Mitsumasa wrote: > (2013/08/05 21:23), Tom Lane wrote: > > Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > >> ... Also, there are global > >> limits to the amount of filehandles that can simultaneously opened on a > >> system. > > > > Yeah. Raising max_files_per_process puts you at serious risk that > > everything else on the box will start falling over for lack of available > > FD slots. > Is it Really? When I use hadoop like NOSQL storage, I set large number of FD. > Actually, Hadoop Wiki is writing following. > > http://wiki.apache.org/hadoop/TooManyOpenFiles > > Too Many Open Files > > > > You can see this on Linux machines in client-side applications, server code or even in test runs. > > It is caused by per-process limits on the number of files that a single user/process can have open, which was introducedin the 2.6.27 kernel. The default value, 128, was chosen because "that should be enough". The first paragraph (which you're quoting with 128) is talking about epoll which we don't use. The second paragraph indeed talks about the max numbers of fds. Of *one* process. Postgres uses a *process* based model. So, max_files_per_process is about the the number of fds in a single backend. You need to multiply it by max_connections + a bunch to get to the overall number of FDs. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
(2013/08/06 19:33), Andres Freund wrote: > On 2013-08-06 19:19:41 +0900, KONDO Mitsumasa wrote: >> (2013/08/05 21:23), Tom Lane wrote: >>> Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> writes: >>>> ... Also, there are global >>>> limits to the amount of filehandles that can simultaneously opened on a >>>> system. >>> >>> Yeah. Raising max_files_per_process puts you at serious risk that >>> everything else on the box will start falling over for lack of available >>> FD slots. >> Is it Really? When I use hadoop like NOSQL storage, I set large number of FD. >> Actually, Hadoop Wiki is writing following. >> >> http://wiki.apache.org/hadoop/TooManyOpenFiles >>> Too Many Open Files >>> >>> You can see this on Linux machines in client-side applications, server code or even in test runs. >>> It is caused by per-process limits on the number of files that a single user/process can have open, which was introducedin the 2.6.27 kernel. The default value, 128, was chosen because "that should be enough". > > The first paragraph (which you're quoting with 128) is talking about > epoll which we don't use. The second paragraph indeed talks about the > max numbers of fds. Of *one* process. Yes. I have been already understood like that. > Postgres uses a *process* based model. So, max_files_per_process is about > the the number of fds in a single backend. You need to multiply it by > max_connections + a bunch to get to the overall number of FDs. Yes, too. I think max_file_per_process seems too small. In NoSQL, it was recommended large number of FD. However, I do not know whether it is really enough in PostgreSQL. If we use PostgreSQL with big data, we might need to change max_file_per_process, I think. Regards, -- Mitsumasa KONDO NTT Open Source Software Center