From: Vladislav Shpilevoy via Tarantool-patches <tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org> To: Serge Petrenko <sergepetrenko@tarantool.org>, Konstantin Osipov <kostja.osipov@gmail.com>, gorcunov@gmail.com, tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org Subject: Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH v3] wal: introduce limits on simultaneous writes Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2021 21:48:08 +0100 [thread overview] Message-ID: <973078e7-04b7-f6fb-1c71-3972e278f0f6@tarantool.org> (raw) In-Reply-To: <07f4831b-2300-2bb0-28a3-9d49f197e951@tarantool.org> Hi! Thanks for the fixes! See 3 comments below. > Here's when the option comes in handy: > Imagine such a situation: there are 2 servers, a master and a replica, > and the replica is down for some period of time. While the replica is > down, the master serves requests at a reasonable pace, possibly close to > its WAL throughput limit. Once the replica reconnects, it has to receive > all the data master has piled up. Now there's no limit in speed at which > master sends the data to replica, and there's no limit at which > replica's applier submits corresponding write requests to WAL. This > leads to a situation when replica's WAL is never in time to serve the > requests and the amount of pending requests is constantly growing. > There's no limit for memory WAL write requests take, and this clogging > of WAL write queue may even lead to replica using up all the available > memory. > > Now, when `wal_queue_max_size` is set, appliers will stop reading new > transactions once the limit is reached. This will let WAL process all the > requests that have piled up and free all the excess memory. > > [tosquash] remove wal_queue_max_len 1. You forgot something, the last line. Also, while we are here, it probably would be easier for the doc team if the old behaviour was described using a past tense, while the new one using the present tense. Currently you use 'now' word both for the old and for the new behaviour. For instance, you say Now there's no limit in speed at which master sends the data to replica, and there's no limit at which replica's applier submits corresponding write requests to WAL But >now< there is a limit. Even if 'wal_queue_max_size' is not set, it works with the default value. > diff --git a/changelogs/unreleased/wal-queue-limit.md b/changelogs/unreleased/wal-queue-limit.md > new file mode 100644 > index 000000000..393932456 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/changelogs/unreleased/wal-queue-limit.md > @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@ > +## feature/core > + > +* Introduce the concept of WAL queue and 2 new configuration options: > + `wal_queue_max_len`, measured in transactions, with 100k default and > + `wal_queue_max_size`, measured in bytes, with 100 Mb default. 2. There is 1 option now, not 2. > + The options help limit the pace at which replica submits new transactions > + to WAL: the limits are checked every time a transaction from master is > + submitted to replica's WAL, and the space taken by a transaction is > + considered empty once it's successfully written (gh-5536).> diff --git a/src/box/journal.h b/src/box/journal.h > index 5d8d5a726..437257728 100644 > --- a/src/box/journal.h > +++ b/src/box/journal.h > @@ -124,6 +142,62 @@ struct journal { > + > +/** Set maximal journal queue size in bytes. */ > +static inline void > +journal_queue_set_max_size(int64_t size) > +{ > + journal_queue.max_size = size; > + journal_queue_wakeup(); > +} > + > +/** Increase queue size on a new write request. */ > +static inline void > +journal_queue_on_append(struct journal_entry *entry) 3. Since you will amend the patch anyway, you could also make the entry 'const', the same in journal_queue_on_complete(). > +{ > + journal_queue.size += entry->approx_len; > +} > + > +/** Decrease queue size once write request is complete. */ > +static inline void > +journal_queue_on_complete(struct journal_entry *entry) > +{ > + journal_queue.size -= entry->approx_len; > + assert(journal_queue.size >= 0); > +}
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-03-16 20:48 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2021-02-24 19:35 Serge Petrenko via Tarantool-patches 2021-02-24 19:40 ` Serge Petrenko via Tarantool-patches 2021-02-25 13:05 ` Konstantin Osipov via Tarantool-patches 2021-02-26 0:57 ` Vladislav Shpilevoy via Tarantool-patches 2021-02-26 7:18 ` Konstantin Osipov via Tarantool-patches 2021-02-26 20:23 ` Vladislav Shpilevoy via Tarantool-patches 2021-02-26 21:20 ` Konstantin Osipov via Tarantool-patches 2021-02-26 22:44 ` Vladislav Shpilevoy via Tarantool-patches 2021-02-27 13:27 ` Konstantin Osipov via Tarantool-patches 2021-03-01 19:15 ` Serge Petrenko via Tarantool-patches 2021-03-01 21:46 ` Konstantin Osipov via Tarantool-patches 2021-02-26 0:56 ` Vladislav Shpilevoy via Tarantool-patches 2021-03-01 19:08 ` Serge Petrenko via Tarantool-patches 2021-03-01 22:05 ` Vladislav Shpilevoy via Tarantool-patches 2021-03-02 17:51 ` Serge Petrenko via Tarantool-patches 2021-03-03 20:59 ` Vladislav Shpilevoy via Tarantool-patches 2021-03-09 15:10 ` Serge Petrenko via Tarantool-patches 2021-03-09 19:49 ` Vladislav Shpilevoy via Tarantool-patches 2021-03-10 8:18 ` Konstantin Osipov via Tarantool-patches 2021-03-12 17:10 ` Serge Petrenko via Tarantool-patches 2021-03-13 19:14 ` Konstantin Osipov via Tarantool-patches 2021-03-15 23:42 ` Vladislav Shpilevoy via Tarantool-patches 2021-03-16 6:45 ` Konstantin Osipov via Tarantool-patches 2021-03-16 20:27 ` Vladislav Shpilevoy via Tarantool-patches 2021-03-16 10:19 ` Serge Petrenko via Tarantool-patches 2021-03-16 20:48 ` Vladislav Shpilevoy via Tarantool-patches [this message] 2021-03-17 12:14 ` Serge Petrenko via Tarantool-patches 2021-03-17 21:02 ` Vladislav Shpilevoy via Tarantool-patches 2021-03-19 11:32 ` Serge Petrenko via Tarantool-patches 2021-03-19 15:36 ` Kirill Yukhin via Tarantool-patches
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=973078e7-04b7-f6fb-1c71-3972e278f0f6@tarantool.org \ --to=tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org \ --cc=gorcunov@gmail.com \ --cc=kostja.osipov@gmail.com \ --cc=sergepetrenko@tarantool.org \ --cc=v.shpilevoy@tarantool.org \ --subject='Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH v3] wal: introduce limits on simultaneous writes' \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox