close https://github.com/neondatabase/neon/issues/9160
For whatever reason, pg17's WAL pattern seems different from others,
which triggers some flaky behavior within the compaction smoke test.
## Summary of changes
* Run L0 compaction before proceeding with the read benchmark.
* So that we can ensure the num of L0 layers is 0 and test the
compaction behavior only with L1 layers.
We have a threshold for triggering L0 compaction. In some cases, the
test case did not produce enough L0 layers to do a L0 compaction,
therefore leaving the layer map with 3+ L0 layers above the L1 layers.
This increases the average read depth for the timeline.
---------
Signed-off-by: Alex Chi Z <chi@neon.tech>
Going through the list of recent flaky tests, trying to fix those
related to graceful shutdown.
- test_forward_compatibility: flush and wait for uploads to avoid
graceful shutdown
- test_layer_bloating: in the end the endpoint and vanilla are still up
=> immediate shutdown
- test_lagging_sk: pageserver shutdown is not related to the test =>
immediate shutdown
- test_lsn_lease_size: pageserver flushing is not needed => immediate
shutdown
Additionally:
- remove `wait_for_upload` usage from workload fixture
Cc: #8708Fixes: #8710
## Problem
Ingest filtering wasn't being applied to timeline creations, so a
timeline created on a sharded tenant would use 20MB+ on each shard (each
shard got a full copy). This didn't break anything, but is inefficient
and leaves the system in a harder-to-validate state where shards
initially have some data that they will eventually drop during
compaction.
Closes: https://github.com/neondatabase/neon/issues/6649
## Summary of changes
- in `import_rel`, filter block-by-block with is_key_local
- During test_sharding_smoke, check that per-shard physical sizes are as
expected
- Also extend the test to check deletion works as expected (this was an
outstanding tech debt task)
## Problem
In the test for https://github.com/neondatabase/neon/pull/6776, a test
cases uses tiny layer sizes and tiny stripe sizes. This hits a scenario
where a shard's checkpoint interval spans a region where none of the
content in the WAL is ingested by this shard. Since there is no layer to
flush, we do not advance disk_consistent_lsn, and this causes the test
to fail while waiting for LSN to advance.
## Summary of changes
- Pass an LSN through `layer_flush_start_tx`. This is the LSN to which
we have frozen at the time we ask the flush to flush layers frozen up to
this point.
- In the layer flush task, if the layers we flush do not reach
`frozen_to_lsn`, then advance disk_consistent_lsn up to this point.
- In `maybe_freeze_ephemeral_layer`, handle the case where
last_record_lsn has advanced without writing a layer file: this ensures
that disk_consistent_lsn and remote_consistent_lsn advance anyway.
The net effect is that the disk_consistent_lsn is allowed to advance
past regions in the WAL where a shard ingests no data, and that we
uphold our guarantee that remote_consistent_lsn always eventually
reaches the tip of the WAL.
The case of no layer at all is hard to test at present due to >0 shards
being polluted with SLRU writes, but I have tested it locally with a
branch that disables SLRU writes on shards >0. We can tighten up the
testing on this in future as/when we refine shard filtering (currently
shards >0 need the SLRU because they use it to figure out cutoff in GC
using timestamp-to-lsn).
Add shard_number to PageserverFeedback and parse it on the compute side.
When compute receives a new ps_feedback, it calculates min LSNs among
feedbacks from all shards, and uses those LSNs for backpressure.
Add `test_sharding_backpressure` to verify that backpressure slows down
compute to wait for the slowest shard.
## Problem
Shard splits worked, but weren't safe against failures (e.g. node crash
during split) yet.
Related: #6676
## Summary of changes
- Introduce async rwlocks at the scope of Tenant and Node:
- exclusive tenant lock is used to protect splits
- exclusive node lock is used to protect new reconciliation process that
happens when setting node active
- exclusive locks used in both cases when doing persistent updates (e.g.
node scheduling conf) where the update to DB & in-memory state needs to
be atomic.
- Add failpoints to shard splitting in control plane and pageserver
code.
- Implement error handling in control plane for shard splits: this
detaches child chards and ensures parent shards are re-attached.
- Crash-safety for storage controller restarts requires little effort:
we already reconcile with nodes over a storage controller restart, so as
long as we reset any incomplete splits in the DB on restart (added in
this PR), things are implicitly cleaned up.
- Implement reconciliation with offline nodes before they transition to
active:
- (in this context reconciliation means something like
startup_reconcile, not literally the Reconciler)
- This covers cases where split abort cannot reach a node to clean it
up: the cleanup will eventually happen when the node is marked active,
as part of reconciliation.
- This also covers the case where a node was unavailable when the
storage controller started, but becomes available later: previously this
allowed it to skip the startup reconcile.
- Storage controller now terminates on panics. We only use panics for
true "should never happen" assertions, and these cases can leave us in
an un-usable state if we keep running (e.g. panicking in a shard split).
In the unlikely event that we get into a crashloop as a result, we'll
rely on kubernetes to back us off.
- Add `test_sharding_split_failures` which exercises a variety of
failure cases during shard split.
## Problem
Where the stripe size is the same order of magnitude as the checkpoint
distance (such as with default settings), tenant shards can easily pass
through `checkpoint_distance` bytes of LSN without actually ingesting
anything. This results in emitting many tiny L0 delta layers.
## Summary of changes
- Multiply checkpoint distance by shard count before comparing with LSN
distance. This is a heuristic and does not guarantee that we won't emit
small layers, but it fixes the issue for typical cases where the writes
in a (checkpoint_distance * shard_count) range of LSN bytes are somewhat
distributed across shards.
- Add a test that checks the size of layers after ingesting to a sharded
tenant; this fails before the fix.
---------
Co-authored-by: Joonas Koivunen <joonas@neon.tech>
## Problem
The support for sharding in the pageserver was written before
https://github.com/neondatabase/neon/pull/6205 landed, so when it landed
we couldn't directly test sharding.
## Summary of changes
- Add `test_sharding_smoke` which tests the basics of creating a
sharding tenant, creating a timeline within it, checking that data
within it is distributed.
- Add modes to pg_regress tests for running with 4 shards as well as
with 1.
## Problem
To test sharding, we need something to control it. We could write python
code for doing this from the test runner, but this wouldn't be usable
with neon_local run directly, and when we want to write tests with large
number of shards/tenants, Rust is a better fit efficiently handling all
the required state.
This service enables automated tests to easily get a system with
sharding/HA without the test itself having to set this all up by hand:
existing tests can be run against sharded tenants just by setting a
shard count when creating the tenant.
## Summary of changes
Attachment service was previously a map of TenantId->TenantState, where
the principal state stored for each tenant was the generation and the
last attached pageserver. This enabled it to serve the re-attach and
validate requests that the pageserver requires.
In this PR, the scope of the service is extended substantially to do
overall management of tenants in the pageserver, including
tenant/timeline creation, live migration, evacuation of offline
pageservers etc. This is done using synchronous code to make declarative
changes to the tenant's intended state (`TenantState.policy` and
`TenantState.intent`), which are then translated into calls into the
pageserver by the `Reconciler`.
Top level summary of modules within
`control_plane/attachment_service/src`:
- `tenant_state`: structure that represents one tenant shard.
- `service`: implements the main high level such as tenant/timeline
creation, marking a node offline, etc.
- `scheduler`: for operations that need to pick a pageserver for a
tenant, construct a scheduler and call into it.
- `compute_hook`: receive notifications when a tenant shard is attached
somewhere new. Once we have locations for all the shards in a tenant,
emit an update to postgres configuration via the neon_local `LocalEnv`.
- `http`: HTTP stubs. These mostly map to methods on `Service`, but are
separated for readability and so that it'll be easier to adapt if/when
we switch to another RPC layer.
- `node`: structure that describes a pageserver node. The most important
attribute of a node is its availability: marking a node offline causes
tenant shards to reschedule away from it.
This PR is a precursor to implementing the full sharding service for
prod (#6342). What's the difference between this and a production-ready
controller for pageservers?
- JSON file persistence to be replaced with a database
- Limited observability.
- No concurrency limits. Marking a pageserver offline will try and
migrate every tenant to a new pageserver concurrently, even if there are
thousands.
- Very simple scheduler that only knows to pick the pageserver with
fewest tenants, and place secondary locations on a different pageserver
than attached locations: it does not try to place shards for the same
tenant on different pageservers. This matters little in tests, because
picking the least-used pageserver usually results in round-robin
placement.
- Scheduler state is rebuilt exhaustively for each operation that
requires a scheduler.
- Relies on neon_local mechanisms for updating postgres: in production
this would be something that flows through the real control plane.
---------
Co-authored-by: Arpad Müller <arpad-m@users.noreply.github.com>
These tests have been loitering on a branch of mine for a while: they
already provide value even without all the secondary mode bits landed
yet, and the Workload helper is handy for other tests too.
- `Workload` is a re-usable test workload that replaces some of the
arbitrary "write a few rows" SQL that I've found my self repeating, and
adds a systematic way to append data and check that reads properly
reflect the changes. This append+validate stuff is important when doing
migrations, as we want to detect situations where we might be reading
from a pageserver that has not properly seen latest changes.
- test_multi_attach is a validation of how the pageserver handles
attaching the same tenant to multiple pageservers, from a safety point
of view. This is intentionally separate from the larger testing of
migration, to provide an isolated environment for multi-attachment.
- test_location_conf_churn is a pseudo-random walk through the various
states that TenantSlot can be put into, with validation that attached
tenants remain externally readable when they should, and as a side
effect validating that the compute endpoint's online configuration
changes work as expected.
- test_live_migration is the reference implementation of how to drive a
pair of pageservers through a zero-downtime migration of a tenant.
---------
Co-authored-by: Arpad Müller <arpad-m@users.noreply.github.com>
