## Problem
`test_pgdata_import_smoke` writes two gigabytes of pages and then reads
them back serially. This is CPU bottlenecked and results in a long
runtime, and sensitivity to CPU load from other tests on the same
machine.
Closes: https://github.com/neondatabase/neon/issues/10071
## Summary of changes
- Use effective_io_concurrency=32 when doing sequential scans through
2GiB of pages in test_pgdata_import_smoke. This is a ~10x runtime
decrease in the parts of the test that do sequential scans.
- Also set `effective_io_concurrency=2` for tests, as I noticed while
debugging that we were doing all getpage requests serially, which is bad
for checking the stability of the batching code.
Co-authored-by: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki@neon.tech>
Co-authored-by: Stas Kelvic <stas@neon.tech>
# Context
This PR contains PoC-level changes for a product feature that allows
onboarding large databases into Neon without going through the regular
data path.
# Changes
This internal RFC provides all the context
* https://github.com/neondatabase/cloud/pull/19799
In the language of the RFC, this PR covers
* the Importer code (`fast_import`)
* all the Pageserver changes (mgmt API changes, flow implementation,
etc)
* a basic test for the Pageserver changes
# Reviewing
As acknowledged in the RFC, the code added in this PR is not ready for
general availability.
Also, the **architecture is not to be discussed in this PR**, but in the
RFC and associated Slack channel instead.
Reviewers of this PR should take that into consideration.
The quality bar to apply during review depends on what area of the code
is being reviewed:
* Importer code (`fast_import`): practically anything goes
* Core flow (`flow.rs`):
* Malicious input data must be expected and the existing threat models
apply.
* The code must not be safe to execute on *dedicated* Pageserver
instances:
* This means in particular that tenants *on other* Pageserver instances
must not be affected negatively wrt data confidentiality, integrity or
availability.
* Other code: the usual quality bar
* Pay special attention to correct use of gate guards, timeline
cancellation in all places during shutdown & migration, etc.
* Consider the broader system impact; if you find potentially
problematic interactions with Storage features that were not covered in
the RFC, bring that up during the review.
I recommend submitting three separate reviews, for the three high-level
areas with different quality bars.
# References
(Internal-only)
* refs https://github.com/neondatabase/cloud/issues/17507
* refs https://github.com/neondatabase/company_projects/issues/293
* refs https://github.com/neondatabase/company_projects/issues/309
* refs https://github.com/neondatabase/cloud/issues/20646
---------
Co-authored-by: Stas Kelvich <stas.kelvich@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki@neon.tech>
Co-authored-by: John Spray <john@neon.tech>
