[Maria-discuss] testing Galera
Hi,
I'd like to evaluate mariadb-galera on some test databases. Our load is at least 90% writes coming from a datastream and I would try to set up a real-world situation and test with real data. Most of the work load is "insert ... on duplicate key update" mass-inserts (actually updates) of about 4MB/10000 rows each. 99% of these run onto 3-4 tables (each around 10GB/7 million rows of size). Total database size is around 800 GB. We have a traditional statement-based master-slave replication, but all these mass-inserts run over a proxy with SET SQL_LOG_BIN=0 in parallel on all systems - no way to process this amount of data single-threaded on the slaves. I was hoping galera would make this easier and make our proxies obsolete.
I have some servers I could use for galera as a first step. I wanted to do this for 4 months now but never got into it, I read your request to test the RC and think I should start now hoping to be able to give some valuable feedback:
After reading through the documentation and some blogs I have some doubts, but my idea was to do the following: I'd clone the database of an existing slave to a new machine with mariadb-galera (name the host "testgalera1" and rsync the database or use mysqldump). I'd then set up this one as a "normal" statement based slave connected to one of our masters? Afterwards, the next host "testgalera2" would have to be added to the galera-cluster? And after that, I'd set up one of our older database servers and add that to the cluster, too. My idea was to take an older, slower system to see how much this slowes the cluster down and get an idea how much headroom I'd have when I leave those old machines out (the old machines have only 64GB of RAM and slower CPUs).
I'd then modify my proxy for all the incoming inserts and add a writer-thread to one of the hosts in the cluster, that data should be replicated by galera to all other galera hosts. All other data should be coming in via the "traditional" replication thread of testgalera1. This should give me a 95-99% real world write situation on the cluster.
Adding a host to a running cluster would mean cloning the whole database (of course), but this also means the host I copy from would have to block write access to its tables and buffer all modifications in memory (at least that's how I read the documentation) during the copy process. Looking at the database size and amount of inserts, I am afraid adding a host to the cluster without taking everything down would be impossible - or even if it works fine now it could cause trouble once the database gets just a little bit larger or my load increases a bit.
before I start with this - is galera an insane idea regarding my load? Or is it worth a try?
Jan
some numbers of some of the old databases:
innodb_buffer_pool_size between 60-120 GB depending on server memory configuration.
db5: Uptime: 8052248 Threads: 44 Questions: 1413881794 Slow queries: 160049 Opens: 683779 Flush tables: 2 Open tables: 1024 Queries per second avg: 175.588
db6: Uptime: 8070552 Threads: 6 Questions: 873413218 Slow queries: 3208 Opens: 336584 Flush tables: 1 Open tables: 578 Queries per second avg: 108.222
db7: Uptime: 4175032 Threads: 28 Questions: 639627677 Slow queries: 139337 Opens: 522673 Flush tables: 1 Open tables: 2016 Queries per second avg: 153.203
db7# mysql -e 'show global status like "%com_%" ' |grep -v '\s0$' Variable_name Value Com_admin_commands 289127 Com_alter_table 6269 Com_analyze 725 Com_begin 3712141 Com_change_db 80112 Com_commit 3999309 Com_create_db 1 Com_create_table 253849 Com_create_trigger 10 Com_create_view 68 Com_delete 12365037 Com_delete_multi 7 Com_drop_table 310771 Com_drop_trigger 10 Com_drop_view 65 Com_empty_query 509 Com_flush 48 Com_grant 36 Com_insert 314280963 Com_insert_select 613565 Com_kill 214 Com_lock_tables 85 Com_optimize 1 Com_purge 2320 Com_rename_table 11 Com_repair 1 Com_replace 14240825 Com_replace_select 29920 Com_revoke 8 Com_rollback 13 Com_select 178540996 Com_set_option 6886915 Com_show_binlogs 69960 Com_show_charsets 1542 Com_show_collations 1544 Com_show_create_db 28 Com_show_create_func 195 Com_show_create_table 53282 Com_show_create_trigger 1 Com_show_databases 43584 Com_show_events 3 Com_show_fields 131874 Com_show_function_status 45 Com_show_grants 335 Com_show_keys 2582 Com_show_master_status 142 Com_show_plugins 7224 Com_show_procedure_status 45 Com_show_processlist 116918 Com_show_slave_status 83193 Com_show_status 155732 Com_show_storage_engines 25 Com_show_table_status 7439 Com_show_tables 1973739 Com_show_triggers 538 Com_show_variables 85034 Com_show_warnings 766 Com_stmt_close 363 Com_stmt_execute 363 Com_stmt_prepare 363 Com_truncate 452 Com_unlock_tables 79 Com_update 34496744 Com_update_multi 408212
Hi Jan,
1) the load and the database size you described is nothing special to Galera, we have users running it on bigger databases and with higher transaction rates, Specifically those bulk inserts are perfectly fine.
2) notice that to get most of Galera (e.g. parallel applying) you have to use ROW binlog format at least on all Galera nodes. Using statement-based replication from master should be fine, but inside Galera cluster it should be ROW.
3) your plan looks fine, just don't forget to set log_slave_updates when mixing Galera and native MySQL replication.
4) the latest MariaDB-Galera has support for xtrabackup for new node provisioning.
Regards, Alex
On 2013-01-24 00:09, Jan Kirchhoff wrote:
Hi,
I'd like to evaluate mariadb-galera on some test databases. Our load is at least 90% writes coming from a datastream and I would try to set up a real-world situation and test with real data. Most of the work load is "insert ... on duplicate key update" mass-inserts (actually updates) of about 4MB/10000 rows each. 99% of these run onto 3-4 tables (each around 10GB/7 million rows of size). Total database size is around 800 GB. We have a traditional statement-based master-slave replication, but all these mass-inserts run over a proxy with SET SQL_LOG_BIN=0 in parallel on all systems - no way to process this amount of data single-threaded on the slaves. I was hoping galera would make this easier and make our proxies obsolete.
I have some servers I could use for galera as a first step. I wanted to do this for 4 months now but never got into it, I read your request to test the RC and think I should start now hoping to be able to give some valuable feedback:
After reading through the documentation and some blogs I have some doubts, but my idea was to do the following: I'd clone the database of an existing slave to a new machine with mariadb-galera (name the host "testgalera1" and rsync the database or use mysqldump). I'd then set up this one as a "normal" statement based slave connected to one of our masters? Afterwards, the next host "testgalera2" would have to be added to the galera-cluster? And after that, I'd set up one of our older database servers and add that to the cluster, too. My idea was to take an older, slower system to see how much this slowes the cluster down and get an idea how much headroom I'd have when I leave those old machines out (the old machines have only 64GB of RAM and slower CPUs).
I'd then modify my proxy for all the incoming inserts and add a writer-thread to one of the hosts in the cluster, that data should be replicated by galera to all other galera hosts. All other data should be coming in via the "traditional" replication thread of testgalera1. This should give me a 95-99% real world write situation on the cluster.
Adding a host to a running cluster would mean cloning the whole database (of course), but this also means the host I copy from would have to block write access to its tables and buffer all modifications in memory (at least that's how I read the documentation) during the copy process. Looking at the database size and amount of inserts, I am afraid adding a host to the cluster without taking everything down would be impossible - or even if it works fine now it could cause trouble once the database gets just a little bit larger or my load increases a bit.
before I start with this - is galera an insane idea regarding my load? Or is it worth a try?
Jan
some numbers of some of the old databases:
innodb_buffer_pool_size between 60-120 GB depending on server memory configuration.
db5: Uptime: 8052248 Threads: 44 Questions: 1413881794 Slow queries: 160049 Opens: 683779 Flush tables: 2 Open tables: 1024 Queries per second avg: 175.588
db6: Uptime: 8070552 Threads: 6 Questions: 873413218 Slow queries: 3208 Opens: 336584 Flush tables: 1 Open tables: 578 Queries per second avg: 108.222
db7: Uptime: 4175032 Threads: 28 Questions: 639627677 Slow queries: 139337 Opens: 522673 Flush tables: 1 Open tables: 2016 Queries per second avg: 153.203
db7# mysql -e 'show global status like "%com_%" ' |grep -v '\s0$' Variable_name Value Com_admin_commands 289127 Com_alter_table 6269 Com_analyze 725 Com_begin 3712141 Com_change_db 80112 Com_commit 3999309 Com_create_db 1 Com_create_table 253849 Com_create_trigger 10 Com_create_view 68 Com_delete 12365037 Com_delete_multi 7 Com_drop_table 310771 Com_drop_trigger 10 Com_drop_view 65 Com_empty_query 509 Com_flush 48 Com_grant 36 Com_insert 314280963 Com_insert_select 613565 Com_kill 214 Com_lock_tables 85 Com_optimize 1 Com_purge 2320 Com_rename_table 11 Com_repair 1 Com_replace 14240825 Com_replace_select 29920 Com_revoke 8 Com_rollback 13 Com_select 178540996 Com_set_option 6886915 Com_show_binlogs 69960 Com_show_charsets 1542 Com_show_collations 1544 Com_show_create_db 28 Com_show_create_func 195 Com_show_create_table 53282 Com_show_create_trigger 1 Com_show_databases 43584 Com_show_events 3 Com_show_fields 131874 Com_show_function_status 45 Com_show_grants 335 Com_show_keys 2582 Com_show_master_status 142 Com_show_plugins 7224 Com_show_procedure_status 45 Com_show_processlist 116918 Com_show_slave_status 83193 Com_show_status 155732 Com_show_storage_engines 25 Com_show_table_status 7439 Com_show_tables 1973739 Com_show_triggers 538 Com_show_variables 85034 Com_show_warnings 766 Com_stmt_close 363 Com_stmt_execute 363 Com_stmt_prepare 363 Com_truncate 452 Com_unlock_tables 79 Com_update 34496744 Com_update_multi 408212
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~maria-discuss Post to : maria-discuss@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~maria-discuss More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Alex,
regarding the transaction rates: we currently have a peak at around 400-500/sec at certain times of the day. We'll see how that works
I just found there are no mariadb-galera-debs around for ubuntu 12.10. Can we expect them soon? Otherwise I'd have to reinstall the test servers with 12.04 - couldn't get the dependency problems resolved when trying to get the 12.04-debs into 12.10 and I don't want to compile myself :-(
Jan
Am 25.01.2013 10:24, schrieb Alex Yurchenko:
Hi Jan,
1) the load and the database size you described is nothing special to Galera, we have users running it on bigger databases and with higher transaction rates, Specifically those bulk inserts are perfectly fine.
2) notice that to get most of Galera (e.g. parallel applying) you have to use ROW binlog format at least on all Galera nodes. Using statement-based replication from master should be fine, but inside Galera cluster it should be ROW.
3) your plan looks fine, just don't forget to set log_slave_updates when mixing Galera and native MySQL replication.
4) the latest MariaDB-Galera has support for xtrabackup for new node provisioning.
Regards, Alex
On 2013-01-24 00:09, Jan Kirchhoff wrote:
Hi,
I'd like to evaluate mariadb-galera on some test databases. Our load is at least 90% writes coming from a datastream and I would try to set up a real-world situation and test with real data. Most of the work load is "insert ... on duplicate key update" mass-inserts (actually updates) of about 4MB/10000 rows each. 99% of these run onto 3-4 tables (each around 10GB/7 million rows of size). Total database size is around 800 GB. We have a traditional statement-based master-slave replication, but all these mass-inserts run over a proxy with SET SQL_LOG_BIN=0 in parallel on all systems - no way to process this amount of data single-threaded on the slaves. I was hoping galera would make this easier and make our proxies obsolete.
I have some servers I could use for galera as a first step. I wanted to do this for 4 months now but never got into it, I read your request to test the RC and think I should start now hoping to be able to give some valuable feedback:
After reading through the documentation and some blogs I have some doubts, but my idea was to do the following: I'd clone the database of an existing slave to a new machine with mariadb-galera (name the host "testgalera1" and rsync the database or use mysqldump). I'd then set up this one as a "normal" statement based slave connected to one of our masters? Afterwards, the next host "testgalera2" would have to be added to the galera-cluster? And after that, I'd set up one of our older database servers and add that to the cluster, too. My idea was to take an older, slower system to see how much this slowes the cluster down and get an idea how much headroom I'd have when I leave those old machines out (the old machines have only 64GB of RAM and slower CPUs).
I'd then modify my proxy for all the incoming inserts and add a writer-thread to one of the hosts in the cluster, that data should be replicated by galera to all other galera hosts. All other data should be coming in via the "traditional" replication thread of testgalera1. This should give me a 95-99% real world write situation on the cluster.
Adding a host to a running cluster would mean cloning the whole database (of course), but this also means the host I copy from would have to block write access to its tables and buffer all modifications in memory (at least that's how I read the documentation) during the copy process. Looking at the database size and amount of inserts, I am afraid adding a host to the cluster without taking everything down would be impossible - or even if it works fine now it could cause trouble once the database gets just a little bit larger or my load increases a bit.
before I start with this - is galera an insane idea regarding my load? Or is it worth a try?
Jan
some numbers of some of the old databases:
innodb_buffer_pool_size between 60-120 GB depending on server memory configuration.
db5: Uptime: 8052248 Threads: 44 Questions: 1413881794 Slow queries: 160049 Opens: 683779 Flush tables: 2 Open tables: 1024 Queries per second avg: 175.588
db6: Uptime: 8070552 Threads: 6 Questions: 873413218 Slow queries: 3208 Opens: 336584 Flush tables: 1 Open tables: 578 Queries per second avg: 108.222
db7: Uptime: 4175032 Threads: 28 Questions: 639627677 Slow queries: 139337 Opens: 522673 Flush tables: 1 Open tables: 2016 Queries per second avg: 153.203
db7# mysql -e 'show global status like "%com_%" ' |grep -v '\s0$' Variable_name Value Com_admin_commands 289127 Com_alter_table 6269 Com_analyze 725 Com_begin 3712141 Com_change_db 80112 Com_commit 3999309 Com_create_db 1 Com_create_table 253849 Com_create_trigger 10 Com_create_view 68 Com_delete 12365037 Com_delete_multi 7 Com_drop_table 310771 Com_drop_trigger 10 Com_drop_view 65 Com_empty_query 509 Com_flush 48 Com_grant 36 Com_insert 314280963 Com_insert_select 613565 Com_kill 214 Com_lock_tables 85 Com_optimize 1 Com_purge 2320 Com_rename_table 11 Com_repair 1 Com_replace 14240825 Com_replace_select 29920 Com_revoke 8 Com_rollback 13 Com_select 178540996 Com_set_option 6886915 Com_show_binlogs 69960 Com_show_charsets 1542 Com_show_collations 1544 Com_show_create_db 28 Com_show_create_func 195 Com_show_create_table 53282 Com_show_create_trigger 1 Com_show_databases 43584 Com_show_events 3 Com_show_fields 131874 Com_show_function_status 45 Com_show_grants 335 Com_show_keys 2582 Com_show_master_status 142 Com_show_plugins 7224 Com_show_procedure_status 45 Com_show_processlist 116918 Com_show_slave_status 83193 Com_show_status 155732 Com_show_storage_engines 25 Com_show_table_status 7439 Com_show_tables 1973739 Com_show_triggers 538 Com_show_variables 85034 Com_show_warnings 766 Com_stmt_close 363 Com_stmt_execute 363 Com_stmt_prepare 363 Com_truncate 452 Com_unlock_tables 79 Com_update 34496744 Com_update_multi 408212
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~maria-discuss Post to : maria-discuss@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~maria-discuss More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
On 2013-01-28 18:18, Jan Kirchhoff wrote:
Alex,
regarding the transaction rates: we currently have a peak at around 400-500/sec at certain times of the day. We'll see how that works
This is all subject to hardware and specific transactions, but _normally_ Galera can sustain considerably higher trx rates than standard MySQL master-slave replication on the same hardware and load. This is mostly due to parallel applying and relaxed innodn_flush_log_at_trx_commit.
But I have seen 3000-5000 trx/sec in some clusters and in some synthetic tests it could achieve up to 50K autocommit updates per second in 1Gb network. So trx rate itself is not an issue there. What matters is how heavy those transactions are for your hardware.
I just found there are no mariadb-galera-debs around for ubuntu 12.10. Can we expect them soon? Otherwise I'd have to reinstall the test servers with 12.04 - couldn't get the dependency problems resolved when trying to get the 12.04-debs into 12.10 and I don't want to compile myself :-(
Unfortunately I have no say in this. This question should be directed to Monty Program.
Jan
Regards, Alex
Hi, Alex!
On Jan 28, Alex Yurchenko wrote:
I just found there are no mariadb-galera-debs around for ubuntu 12.10. Can we expect them soon?
Unfortunately I have no say in this. This question should be directed to Monty Program.
First - of course, you have a say in this. We are trying to guess how to package mariadb-galera best, but if we're doing wrong, by all means, please tell us that!
As for Ubuntu 12.10, we've just recently added quantal builders to our buildbot, and the next release of mariadb-galera (which we plan to release this week) will have packages for it.
Regards, Sergei
On 2013-01-28 22:34, Sergei Golubchik wrote:
Hi, Alex!
On Jan 28, Alex Yurchenko wrote:
I just found there are no mariadb-galera-debs around for ubuntu 12.10. Can we expect them soon?
Unfortunately I have no say in this. This question should be directed to Monty Program.
First - of course, you have a say in this. We are trying to guess how to package mariadb-galera best, but if we're doing wrong, by all means, please tell us that!
Sergei, what I meant it that I'm not responsible for the actual process of building and releasing official mariadb-galera binaries ;)
And I suspect that you're doing everything right - it is just the usual dependency incompatibility between distro releases. E.g. RHEL6 and Ubuntu 12.10 have switched to openssl 1.0 and that breaks Galera linking if it was compiled for a previous release. Dedicated quantal build should do the trick.
Regards, Alex
As for Ubuntu 12.10, we've just recently added quantal builders to our buildbot, and the next release of mariadb-galera (which we plan to release this week) will have packages for it.
Regards, Sergei
Hi everybody,
I installed Galera on 2 servers, imported a database dump (took almost 2 days to import a 100GB gzipped sql-dump ...) and set up one of the two servers as a replication slave of our main database.
Now as I try to understand all the new variables and want to get an idea of do's and dont's some questions pop up:
While the traditional replication slave on the first galera-server is still catching up (still 200000 seconds behind...) I had our main data-proxy starting to write to that server. Most of the data coming into our databases is not going its way trough the replication but via our self-written proxy application. This application connects to all databases, sets SQL_LOG_BIN=0 and then starts updating just a few tables (up to 15-20GB of pure sql statements per hour depending on the time of the day). This works fine, the server was processing the statements no slower than the other non-galera servers.
I couldn't see the updates on the second galera-server and figured that was because of the SQL_LOG_BIN=0. Now things got complicated. How to resolve this? I gave it a try, hacked the proxy not to set SQL_LOG_BIN=0 for that specific server and started it again, but this made the second server crash almost immidiatly with HA_ERR_KEY_NOT_FOUND - actually I was expecting something like that to happen as the tables were out of sync now.
Is there something like slave_skip_counter, aka "I Know what I do, skip that update"? I think I have to take a new snapshot to get the second node up and consistent again. It tried to to that automatically but stopped because of the hanging rsync-daemon problem. I'll let it catch up with the replication lag first and then start that again...
If I take a node down or just restart mariadb after changing variables, it pulls the changes it missed (IST) from another server, right? These are saved in the galera-cache on all servers? How do I figure out what a reasonable size for the gcache would be for me? The default size of 128MB is way to small for me if I want to take a node down for a few hours to do backups/upgrades/whatever, but do I need 5, 10 or 50 GBs? Some information on number of bytes written to the gcache I could look at? Or is "wsrep_replicated_bytes" the number to look at?
Finding all documentation and understanding the details is a little bit difficult and time-consuming, but I'm making my way...
btw: is maria-developers a better place to post this as I am not writing on production software but alpha releases?
thanks Jan
Am 28.01.2013 17:18, schrieb Jan Kirchhoff:
Alex,
regarding the transaction rates: we currently have a peak at around 400-500/sec at certain times of the day. We'll see how that works
I just found there are no mariadb-galera-debs around for ubuntu 12.10. Can we expect them soon? Otherwise I'd have to reinstall the test servers with 12.04 - couldn't get the dependency problems resolved when trying to get the 12.04-debs into 12.10 and I don't want to compile myself :-(
Jan
Am 25.01.2013 10:24, schrieb Alex Yurchenko:
Hi Jan,
1) the load and the database size you described is nothing special to Galera, we have users running it on bigger databases and with higher transaction rates, Specifically those bulk inserts are perfectly fine.
2) notice that to get most of Galera (e.g. parallel applying) you have to use ROW binlog format at least on all Galera nodes. Using statement-based replication from master should be fine, but inside Galera cluster it should be ROW.
3) your plan looks fine, just don't forget to set log_slave_updates when mixing Galera and native MySQL replication.
4) the latest MariaDB-Galera has support for xtrabackup for new node provisioning.
Regards, Alex
On 2013-01-24 00:09, Jan Kirchhoff wrote:
Hi,
I'd like to evaluate mariadb-galera on some test databases. Our load is at least 90% writes coming from a datastream and I would try to set up a real-world situation and test with real data. Most of the work load is "insert ... on duplicate key update" mass-inserts (actually updates) of about 4MB/10000 rows each. 99% of these run onto 3-4 tables (each around 10GB/7 million rows of size). Total database size is around 800 GB. We have a traditional statement-based master-slave replication, but all these mass-inserts run over a proxy with SET SQL_LOG_BIN=0 in parallel on all systems - no way to process this amount of data single-threaded on the slaves. I was hoping galera would make this easier and make our proxies obsolete.
I have some servers I could use for galera as a first step. I wanted to do this for 4 months now but never got into it, I read your request to test the RC and think I should start now hoping to be able to give some valuable feedback:
After reading through the documentation and some blogs I have some doubts, but my idea was to do the following: I'd clone the database of an existing slave to a new machine with mariadb-galera (name the host "testgalera1" and rsync the database or use mysqldump). I'd then set up this one as a "normal" statement based slave connected to one of our masters? Afterwards, the next host "testgalera2" would have to be added to the galera-cluster? And after that, I'd set up one of our older database servers and add that to the cluster, too. My idea was to take an older, slower system to see how much this slowes the cluster down and get an idea how much headroom I'd have when I leave those old machines out (the old machines have only 64GB of RAM and slower CPUs).
I'd then modify my proxy for all the incoming inserts and add a writer-thread to one of the hosts in the cluster, that data should be replicated by galera to all other galera hosts. All other data should be coming in via the "traditional" replication thread of testgalera1. This should give me a 95-99% real world write situation on the cluster.
Adding a host to a running cluster would mean cloning the whole database (of course), but this also means the host I copy from would have to block write access to its tables and buffer all modifications in memory (at least that's how I read the documentation) during the copy process. Looking at the database size and amount of inserts, I am afraid adding a host to the cluster without taking everything down would be impossible - or even if it works fine now it could cause trouble once the database gets just a little bit larger or my load increases a bit.
before I start with this - is galera an insane idea regarding my load? Or is it worth a try?
Jan
some numbers of some of the old databases:
innodb_buffer_pool_size between 60-120 GB depending on server memory configuration.
db5: Uptime: 8052248 Threads: 44 Questions: 1413881794 Slow queries: 160049 Opens: 683779 Flush tables: 2 Open tables: 1024 Queries per second avg: 175.588
db6: Uptime: 8070552 Threads: 6 Questions: 873413218 Slow queries: 3208 Opens: 336584 Flush tables: 1 Open tables: 578 Queries per second avg: 108.222
db7: Uptime: 4175032 Threads: 28 Questions: 639627677 Slow queries: 139337 Opens: 522673 Flush tables: 1 Open tables: 2016 Queries per second avg: 153.203
db7# mysql -e 'show global status like "%com_%" ' |grep -v '\s0$' Variable_name Value Com_admin_commands 289127 Com_alter_table 6269 Com_analyze 725 Com_begin 3712141 Com_change_db 80112 Com_commit 3999309 Com_create_db 1 Com_create_table 253849 Com_create_trigger 10 Com_create_view 68 Com_delete 12365037 Com_delete_multi 7 Com_drop_table 310771 Com_drop_trigger 10 Com_drop_view 65 Com_empty_query 509 Com_flush 48 Com_grant 36 Com_insert 314280963 Com_insert_select 613565 Com_kill 214 Com_lock_tables 85 Com_optimize 1 Com_purge 2320 Com_rename_table 11 Com_repair 1 Com_replace 14240825 Com_replace_select 29920 Com_revoke 8 Com_rollback 13 Com_select 178540996 Com_set_option 6886915 Com_show_binlogs 69960 Com_show_charsets 1542 Com_show_collations 1544 Com_show_create_db 28 Com_show_create_func 195 Com_show_create_table 53282 Com_show_create_trigger 1 Com_show_databases 43584 Com_show_events 3 Com_show_fields 131874 Com_show_function_status 45 Com_show_grants 335 Com_show_keys 2582 Com_show_master_status 142 Com_show_plugins 7224 Com_show_procedure_status 45 Com_show_processlist 116918 Com_show_slave_status 83193 Com_show_status 155732 Com_show_storage_engines 25 Com_show_table_status 7439 Com_show_tables 1973739 Com_show_triggers 538 Com_show_variables 85034 Com_show_warnings 766 Com_stmt_close 363 Com_stmt_execute 363 Com_stmt_prepare 363 Com_truncate 452 Com_unlock_tables 79 Com_update 34496744 Com_update_multi 408212
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~maria-discuss Post to : maria-discuss@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~maria-discuss More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~maria-discuss Post to : maria-discuss@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~maria-discuss More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Hi Jan,
I recommend to ask for advice regarding Galera fine-tuning and tricks on the Codership mail list: codership-team@googlegroups.com. It's an active group, and as far as I can tell, Galera experts there are quite responsive.
While we might be able to provide _some_ views on the subject, Codership people have far more intimate knowledge of Galera internals and specifics, and besides there are subscribers with different working configurations and environments, possibly in some cases similar to yours, so they might share their experience.
Regards, Elena
On 2/11/2013 7:38 PM, Jan Kirchhoff wrote:
Hi everybody,
I installed Galera on 2 servers, imported a database dump (took almost 2 days to import a 100GB gzipped sql-dump ...) and set up one of the two servers as a replication slave of our main database.
Now as I try to understand all the new variables and want to get an idea of do's and dont's some questions pop up:
While the traditional replication slave on the first galera-server is still catching up (still 200000 seconds behind...) I had our main data-proxy starting to write to that server. Most of the data coming into our databases is not going its way trough the replication but via our self-written proxy application. This application connects to all databases, sets SQL_LOG_BIN=0 and then starts updating just a few tables (up to 15-20GB of pure sql statements per hour depending on the time of the day). This works fine, the server was processing the statements no slower than the other non-galera servers.
I couldn't see the updates on the second galera-server and figured that was because of the SQL_LOG_BIN=0. Now things got complicated. How to resolve this? I gave it a try, hacked the proxy not to set SQL_LOG_BIN=0 for that specific server and started it again, but this made the second server crash almost immidiatly with HA_ERR_KEY_NOT_FOUND - actually I was expecting something like that to happen as the tables were out of sync now.
Is there something like slave_skip_counter, aka "I Know what I do, skip that update"? I think I have to take a new snapshot to get the second node up and consistent again. It tried to to that automatically but stopped because of the hanging rsync-daemon problem. I'll let it catch up with the replication lag first and then start that again...
If I take a node down or just restart mariadb after changing variables, it pulls the changes it missed (IST) from another server, right? These are saved in the galera-cache on all servers? How do I figure out what a reasonable size for the gcache would be for me? The default size of 128MB is way to small for me if I want to take a node down for a few hours to do backups/upgrades/whatever, but do I need 5, 10 or 50 GBs? Some information on number of bytes written to the gcache I could look at? Or is "wsrep_replicated_bytes" the number to look at?
Finding all documentation and understanding the details is a little bit difficult and time-consuming, but I'm making my way...
btw: is maria-developers a better place to post this as I am not writing on production software but alpha releases?
thanks Jan
Am 28.01.2013 17:18, schrieb Jan Kirchhoff:
Alex,
regarding the transaction rates: we currently have a peak at around 400-500/sec at certain times of the day. We'll see how that works
I just found there are no mariadb-galera-debs around for ubuntu 12.10. Can we expect them soon? Otherwise I'd have to reinstall the test servers with 12.04 - couldn't get the dependency problems resolved when trying to get the 12.04-debs into 12.10 and I don't want to compile myself :-(
Jan
Am 25.01.2013 10:24, schrieb Alex Yurchenko:
Hi Jan,
1) the load and the database size you described is nothing special to Galera, we have users running it on bigger databases and with higher transaction rates, Specifically those bulk inserts are perfectly fine.
2) notice that to get most of Galera (e.g. parallel applying) you have to use ROW binlog format at least on all Galera nodes. Using statement-based replication from master should be fine, but inside Galera cluster it should be ROW.
3) your plan looks fine, just don't forget to set log_slave_updates when mixing Galera and native MySQL replication.
4) the latest MariaDB-Galera has support for xtrabackup for new node provisioning.
Regards, Alex
On 2013-01-24 00:09, Jan Kirchhoff wrote:
Hi,
I'd like to evaluate mariadb-galera on some test databases. Our load is at least 90% writes coming from a datastream and I would try to set up a real-world situation and test with real data. Most of the work load is "insert ... on duplicate key update" mass-inserts (actually updates) of about 4MB/10000 rows each. 99% of these run onto 3-4 tables (each around 10GB/7 million rows of size). Total database size is around 800 GB. We have a traditional statement-based master-slave replication, but all these mass-inserts run over a proxy with SET SQL_LOG_BIN=0 in parallel on all systems - no way to process this amount of data single-threaded on the slaves. I was hoping galera would make this easier and make our proxies obsolete.
I have some servers I could use for galera as a first step. I wanted to do this for 4 months now but never got into it, I read your request to test the RC and think I should start now hoping to be able to give some valuable feedback:
After reading through the documentation and some blogs I have some doubts, but my idea was to do the following: I'd clone the database of an existing slave to a new machine with mariadb-galera (name the host "testgalera1" and rsync the database or use mysqldump). I'd then set up this one as a "normal" statement based slave connected to one of our masters? Afterwards, the next host "testgalera2" would have to be added to the galera-cluster? And after that, I'd set up one of our older database servers and add that to the cluster, too. My idea was to take an older, slower system to see how much this slowes the cluster down and get an idea how much headroom I'd have when I leave those old machines out (the old machines have only 64GB of RAM and slower CPUs).
I'd then modify my proxy for all the incoming inserts and add a writer-thread to one of the hosts in the cluster, that data should be replicated by galera to all other galera hosts. All other data should be coming in via the "traditional" replication thread of testgalera1. This should give me a 95-99% real world write situation on the cluster.
Adding a host to a running cluster would mean cloning the whole database (of course), but this also means the host I copy from would have to block write access to its tables and buffer all modifications in memory (at least that's how I read the documentation) during the copy process. Looking at the database size and amount of inserts, I am afraid adding a host to the cluster without taking everything down would be impossible - or even if it works fine now it could cause trouble once the database gets just a little bit larger or my load increases a bit.
before I start with this - is galera an insane idea regarding my load? Or is it worth a try?
Jan
some numbers of some of the old databases:
innodb_buffer_pool_size between 60-120 GB depending on server memory configuration.
db5: Uptime: 8052248 Threads: 44 Questions: 1413881794 Slow queries: 160049 Opens: 683779 Flush tables: 2 Open tables: 1024 Queries per second avg: 175.588
db6: Uptime: 8070552 Threads: 6 Questions: 873413218 Slow queries: 3208 Opens: 336584 Flush tables: 1 Open tables: 578 Queries per second avg: 108.222
db7: Uptime: 4175032 Threads: 28 Questions: 639627677 Slow queries: 139337 Opens: 522673 Flush tables: 1 Open tables: 2016 Queries per second avg: 153.203
db7# mysql -e 'show global status like "%com_%" ' |grep -v '\s0$' Variable_name Value Com_admin_commands 289127 Com_alter_table 6269 Com_analyze 725 Com_begin 3712141 Com_change_db 80112 Com_commit 3999309 Com_create_db 1 Com_create_table 253849 Com_create_trigger 10 Com_create_view 68 Com_delete 12365037 Com_delete_multi 7 Com_drop_table 310771 Com_drop_trigger 10 Com_drop_view 65 Com_empty_query 509 Com_flush 48 Com_grant 36 Com_insert 314280963 Com_insert_select 613565 Com_kill 214 Com_lock_tables 85 Com_optimize 1 Com_purge 2320 Com_rename_table 11 Com_repair 1 Com_replace 14240825 Com_replace_select 29920 Com_revoke 8 Com_rollback 13 Com_select 178540996 Com_set_option 6886915 Com_show_binlogs 69960 Com_show_charsets 1542 Com_show_collations 1544 Com_show_create_db 28 Com_show_create_func 195 Com_show_create_table 53282 Com_show_create_trigger 1 Com_show_databases 43584 Com_show_events 3 Com_show_fields 131874 Com_show_function_status 45 Com_show_grants 335 Com_show_keys 2582 Com_show_master_status 142 Com_show_plugins 7224 Com_show_procedure_status 45 Com_show_processlist 116918 Com_show_slave_status 83193 Com_show_status 155732 Com_show_storage_engines 25 Com_show_table_status 7439 Com_show_tables 1973739 Com_show_triggers 538 Com_show_variables 85034 Com_show_warnings 766 Com_stmt_close 363 Com_stmt_execute 363 Com_stmt_prepare 363 Com_truncate 452 Com_unlock_tables 79 Com_update 34496744 Com_update_multi 408212
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~maria-discuss Post to : maria-discuss@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~maria-discuss More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~maria-discuss Post to : maria-discuss@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~maria-discuss More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~maria-discuss Post to : maria-discuss@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~maria-discuss More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Jan Kirchhoff j.kirchhoff@logical-line.de writes:
Is there something like slave_skip_counter, aka "I Know what I do, skip that update"? I think I have to take a new snapshot to get the second
Yes, MariaDB has this:
https://kb.askmonty.org/en/selectively-skipping-replication-of-binlog-events...
If you set skip_replication=0 (instead of SQL_LOG_BIN=0) and replicate-events-marked-for-skip=FILTER_ON_MASTER on all servers. Then the changes will be logged to the binlog (for Galera to use), but will not be sent to other slaves using traditional replication.
Disclaimer: I do not have much experience with Galera, much less actually tried using it with @@skip_replication, but it should work, I think.
Note that this is a MariaDB feature (it will not work with Galera based on MySQL or Percona-server).
- Kristian.
Kristian, I didn't know of that function, good to hear that.
But I was after some kind of slave_skip_counter-like function to make galera skip an event in case of problems. I'm fine with a cluster member stopping (or going read-only or something like that) because some update couldn't be applied, but if I (for whatever reason) think that's OK and just want it to skip that event, how could I do that?
Jan
Am 12.02.2013 10:36, schrieb Kristian Nielsen:
Jan Kirchhoff j.kirchhoff@logical-line.de writes:
Is there something like slave_skip_counter, aka "I Know what I do, skip that update"? I think I have to take a new snapshot to get the second
Yes, MariaDB has this:
https://kb.askmonty.org/en/selectively-skipping-replication-of-binlog-events...
If you set skip_replication=0 (instead of SQL_LOG_BIN=0) and replicate-events-marked-for-skip=FILTER_ON_MASTER on all servers. Then the changes will be logged to the binlog (for Galera to use), but will not be sent to other slaves using traditional replication.
Disclaimer: I do not have much experience with Galera, much less actually tried using it with @@skip_replication, but it should work, I think.
Note that this is a MariaDB feature (it will not work with Galera based on MySQL or Percona-server).
- Kristian.
Jan Kirchhoff j.kirchhoff@logical-line.de writes:
Kristian, I didn't know of that function, good to hear that.
But I was after some kind of slave_skip_counter-like function to make galera skip an event in case of problems. I'm fine with a cluster member stopping (or going read-only or something like that) because some update couldn't be applied, but if I (for whatever reason) think that's OK and just want it to skip that event, how could I do that?
I'm sorry, I quoted the wrong piece of your original email, which may have created some confusion.
I meant to comment on this:
application connects to all databases, sets SQL_LOG_BIN=0 and then starts updating just a few tables (up to 15-20GB of pure sql statements per hour depending on the time of the day). This works fine, the server was processing the statements no slower than the other non-galera servers.
I couldn't see the updates on the second galera-server and figured that was because of the SQL_LOG_BIN=0. Now things got complicated. How to
My point was - you can maybe avoid the problem that SQL_LOG_BIN=0 makes the updates not be seen on other galera servers. SKIP_REPLICATION=1 works similar to SQL_LOG_BIN=0, in that it makes the statements not be replicated. But with SKIP_REPLICATION=1, data is still written to the binlog, so I thought the missing update problem would be solved for galera.
Unfortunately, I do not know about the slave_skip_counter and galera.
- Kristian.
participants (5)
-
Alex Yurchenko -
Elena Stepanova -
Jan Kirchhoff -
Kristian Nielsen -
Sergei Golubchik