we want to run some specific pagebench test cases on dedicated hardware
to get reproducible results
run1: 1 client per tenant => characterize throughput with n tenants.
- 500 tenants
- scale 13 (200 MB database)
- 1 hour duration
- ca 380 GB layer snapshot files
run2.singleclient: 1 client per tenant => characterize latencies
run2.manyclient: N clients per tenant => characterize throughput
scalability within one tenant.
- 1 tenant with 1 client for latencies
- 1 tenant with 64 clients because typically for a high number of
connections we recommend the connection pooler
which by default uses 64 connections (for scalability)
- scale 136 (2048 MB database)
- 20 minutes each
Adds manual compaction trigger; add gc compaction to test_gc_feedback
Part of https://github.com/neondatabase/neon/issues/8002
```
test_gc_feedback[debug-pg15].logical_size: 50 Mb
test_gc_feedback[debug-pg15].physical_size: 2269 Mb
test_gc_feedback[debug-pg15].physical/logical ratio: 44.5302
test_gc_feedback[debug-pg15].max_total_num_of_deltas: 7
test_gc_feedback[debug-pg15].max_num_of_deltas_above_image: 2
test_gc_feedback[debug-pg15].logical_size_after_bottom_most_compaction: 50 Mb
test_gc_feedback[debug-pg15].physical_size_after_bottom_most_compaction: 287 Mb
test_gc_feedback[debug-pg15].physical/logical ratio after bottom_most_compaction: 5.6312
test_gc_feedback[debug-pg15].max_total_num_of_deltas_after_bottom_most_compaction: 4
test_gc_feedback[debug-pg15].max_num_of_deltas_above_image_after_bottom_most_compaction: 1
```
## Summary of changes
* Add the manual compaction trigger
* Use in test_gc_feedback
* Add a guard to avoid running it with retain_lsns
* Fix: Do `schedule_compaction_update` after compaction
* Fix: Supply deltas in the correct order to reconstruct value
---------
Signed-off-by: Alex Chi Z <chi@neon.tech>
## Problem
- `test_storage_controller_many_tenants` can fail with warnings in the
storage controller about tenant creation holding a lock for too long,
because this test stresses the machine running the test with many
concurrent timeline creations
- `test_tenant_delete_smoke` can fail when synthetic remote storage
errors show up
## Summary of changes
- tolerate warnings about slow timeline creation in
test_storage_controller_many_tenants
- tolerate both possible errors during error_tolerant_delete
In #7957 we enabled deletion without attachment, but retained the
old-style deletion (return 202, delete in background) for attached
tenants. In this PR, we remove the old-style deletion path, such that if
the tenant delete API is invoked while a tenant is detached, it is
simply detached before completing the deletion.
This intentionally doesn't rip out all the old deletion code: in case a
deletion was in progress at time of upgrade, we keep around the code for
finishing it for one release cycle. The rest of the code removal happens
in https://github.com/neondatabase/neon/pull/8091
Now that deletion will always be via the new path, the new path is also
updated to use some retries around remote storage operations, to
tripping up the control plane with 500s if S3 has an intermittent issue.
## Problem
see https://github.com/neondatabase/neon/issues/8070
## Summary of changes
the neon_local subcommands to
- start neon
- start pageserver
- start safekeeper
- start storage controller
get a new option -t=xx or --start-timeout=xx which allows to specify a
longer timeout in seconds we wait for the process start.
This is useful in test cases where the pageserver has to read a lot of
layer data, like in pagebench test cases.
In addition we exploit the new timeout option in the python test
infrastructure (python fixtures) and modify the flaky testcase to
increase the timeout from 10 seconds to 1 minute.
Example from the test execution
```bash
RUST_BACKTRACE=1 NEON_ENV_BUILDER_USE_OVERLAYFS_FOR_SNAPSHOTS=1 DEFAULT_PG_VERSION=15 BUILD_TYPE=release ./scripts/pytest test_runner/performance/pageserver/pagebench/test_pageserver_max_throughput_getpage_at_latest_lsn.py
...
2024-06-19 09:29:34.590 INFO [neon_fixtures.py:1513] Running command "/instance_store/neon/target/release/neon_local storage_controller start --start-timeout=60s"
2024-06-19 09:29:36.365 INFO [broker.py:34] starting storage_broker to listen incoming connections at "127.0.0.1:15001"
2024-06-19 09:29:36.365 INFO [neon_fixtures.py:1513] Running command "/instance_store/neon/target/release/neon_local pageserver start --id=1 --start-timeout=60s"
2024-06-19 09:29:36.366 INFO [neon_fixtures.py:1513] Running command "/instance_store/neon/target/release/neon_local safekeeper start 1 --start-timeout=60s"
```
## Problem
`test_pageserver_max_throughput_getpage_at_latest_lsn` is a pagebench
testcase which creates several tenants/timelines to verify pageserver
performance.
The test swaps environments around in the tenant duplication stage, so
the storage controller uses two separate db instances (one in the
duplication stage and another one in the benchmarking stage).
In the benchmarking stage, the storage controller starts without any
knowledge of nodes, but with knowledge of tenants (via
attachments.json). When we re-attach and attempt to update the scheduler
stats, the scheduler rightfully complains
about the node not being known. The setup should preserve the storage
controller across the two envs, but i think it's fine to just allow list
the error in this case.
## Summary of changes
add the error message
`2024-06-19T09:38:27.866085Z ERROR Scheduler missing node 1``
to the list of allowed errors for storage_controller
## Problem
halfvec data type was introduced in pgvector 0.7.0 and is popular
because
it allows smaller vectors, smaller indexes and potentially better
performance.
So far we have not tested halfvec in our periodic performance tests.
This PR adds halfvec indexing and halfvec queries to the test.
## Problem
Testcase page bench test_pageserver_max_throughput_getpage_at_latest_lsn
had been deactivated because it was flaky.
We now ignore copy fail error messages like in
270d3be507/test_runner/regress/test_pageserver_getpage_throttle.py (L17-L20)
and want to reactivate it to see it it is still flaky
## Summary of changes
- reactivate the test in CI
- ignore CopyFail error message during page bench test cases
## Checklist before requesting a review
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my code.
- [ ] If it is a core feature, I have added thorough tests.
- [ ] Do we need to implement analytics? if so did you add the relevant
metrics to the dashboard?
- [ ] If this PR requires public announcement, mark it with
/release-notes label and add several sentences in this section.
## Checklist before merging
- [ ] Do not forget to reformat commit message to not include the above
checklist
A simple API to collect some statistics after compaction to easily
understand the result.
The tool reads the layer map, and analyze range by range instead of
doing single-key operations, which is more efficient than doing a
benchmark to collect the result. It currently computes two key metrics:
* Latest data access efficiency, which finds how many delta layers /
image layers the system needs to iterate before returning any key in a
key range.
* (Approximate) PiTR efficiency, as in
https://github.com/neondatabase/neon/issues/7770, which is simply the
number of delta files in the range. The reason behind that is, assume no
image layer is created, PiTR efficiency is simply the cost of collect
records from the delta layers, and the replay time. Number of delta
files (or in the future, estimated size of reads) is a simple yet
efficient way of estimating how much effort the page server needs to
reconstruct a page.
Signed-off-by: Alex Chi Z <chi@neon.tech>
## Problem
We want to regularly verify the performance of pgvector HNSW parallel
index builds and parallel similarity search using HNSW indexes.
The first release that considerably improved the index-build parallelism
was pgvector 0.7.0 and we want to make sure that we do not regress by
our neon compute VM settings (swap, memory over commit, pg conf etc.)
## Summary of changes
Prepare a Neon project with 1 million openAI vector embeddings (vector
size 1536).
Run HNSW indexing operations in the regression test for the various
distance metrics.
Run similarity queries using pgbench with 100 concurrent clients.
I have also added the relevant metrics to the grafana dashboards pgbench
and olape
---------
Co-authored-by: Alexander Bayandin <alexander@neon.tech>
## Problem
Currently tenants are only split into multiple shards if a human being
calls the API to do it.
Issue: #7388
## Summary of changes
- Add a pageserver API for returning the top tenants by size
- Add a step to the controller's background loop where if there is no
reconciliation or optimization to be done, it looks for things to split.
- Add a test that runs pgbench on many tenants concurrently, and checks
that splitting happens as expected as tenants grow, without interrupting
the client I/O.
This PR is quite basic: there is a tasklist in
https://github.com/neondatabase/neon/issues/7388 for further work. This
PR is meant to be safe (off by default), and sufficient to enable our
staging environment to run lots of sharded tenants without a human
having to set them up.
## Problem
Storage controller was using a zero layer count in SecondaryProgress as
a proxy for "not initialized". However, in tenants with zero timelines
(a legitimate state), the layer count remains zero forever.
This caused https://github.com/neondatabase/neon/pull/7583 to
destabilize the storage controller scale test, which creates lots of
tenants, some of which don't get any timelines.
## Summary of changes
- Use a None mtime instead of zero layer count to determine if a
SecondaryProgress should be ignored.
- Adjust the test to use a shorter heatmap upload period to let it
proceed faster while waiting for scheduling optimizations to complete.
Preceding PR https://github.com/neondatabase/neon/pull/7613 reduced the
usage of `--pageserver-config-override`.
This PR builds on top of that work and fully removes the `neon_local
--pageserver-config-override`.
Tests that need a non-default `pageserver.toml` control it using two
options:
1. Specify `NeonEnvBuilder.pageserver_config_override` before
`NeonEnvBuilder.init_start()`. This uses a new `neon_local init
--pageserver-config` flag.
2. After `init_start()`: `env.pageserver.stop()` +
`NeonPageserver.edit_config_toml()` + `env.pageserver.start()`
A few test cases were using
`env.pageserver.start(overrides=("--pageserver-config-override...",))`.
I changed them to use one of the options above.
Future Work
-----------
The `neon_local init --pageserver-config` flag still uses `pageserver
--config-override` under the hood. In the future, neon_local should just
write the `pageserver.toml` directly.
The `NeonEnvBuilder.pageserver_config_override` field should be renamed
to `pageserver_initial_config`. Let's save this churn for a separate
refactor commit.
## Problem
Storage controller was observed to have unexpectedly large memory
consumption when loaded with many thousands of shards.
This was recently fixed:
- https://github.com/neondatabase/neon/pull/7493
...but we need a general test that the controller is well behaved with
thousands of shards.
Closes: https://github.com/neondatabase/neon/issues/7460
Closes: https://github.com/neondatabase/neon/issues/7463
## Summary of changes
- Add test test_storage_controller_many_tenants to exercise the system's
behaviour with a more substantial workload. This test measures memory
consumption and reproduces #7460 before the other changes in this PR.
- Tweak reconcile_all's return value to make it nonzero if it spawns no
reconcilers, but _would_ have spawned some reconcilers if they weren't
blocked by the reconcile concurrency limit. This makes the test's
reconcile_until_idle behave as expected (i.e. not complete until the
system is nice and calm).
- Fix an issue where tenant migrations would leave a spurious secondary
location when migrated to some location that was not already their
secondary (this was an existing low-impact bug that tripped up the
test's consistency checks).
On the test with 8000 shards, the resident memory per shard is about
20KiB. This is not really per-shard memory: the primary source of memory
growth is the number of concurrent network/db clients we create.
With 8000 shards, the test takes 125s to run on my workstation.
Not a user-facing change, but can break any existing `.neon` directories
created by neon_local, as the name of the database used by the storage
controller changes.
This PR changes all the locations apart from the path of
`control_plane/attachment_service` (waiting for an opportune moment to
do that one, because it's the most conflict-ish wrt ongoing PRs like
#6676 )
## Problem
We reverted https://github.com/neondatabase/neon/pull/6661 a few days
ago. The change led to OOMs in
benchmarks followed by large WAL reingests.
The issue was that we removed [this
code](d04af08567/pageserver/src/tenant/timeline/walreceiver/walreceiver_connection.rs (L409-L417)).
That call may trigger a roll of the open layer due to
the keepalive messages received from the safekeeper. Removing it meant
that enforcing
of checkpoint timeout became even more lax and led to using up large
amounts of memory
for the in memory layer indices.
## Summary of changes
Piggyback on keep alive messages to enforce checkpoint timeout. This is
a hack, but it's exactly what
the current code is doing.
## Alternatives
Christhian, Joonas and myself sketched out a timer based approach
[here](https://github.com/neondatabase/neon/pull/6940). While discussing
it further, it became obvious that's also a bit of a hack and not the
desired end state. I chose not
to take that further since it's not what we ultimately want and it'll be
harder to rip out.
Right now it's unclear what the ideal system behaviour is:
* early flushing on memory pressure, or ...
* detaching tenants on memory pressure
We have a benchmark for creating a lot of branches, but it does random
things, and the branch count is not what we is the largest maximum we
aim to support. If this PR would stabilize the benchmark total duration
it means that there are some structures which are very much slower than
others. Then we should add a seed-outputting variant to help find and
reproduce such cases.
Additionally, record for the benchmark:
- shutdown duration
- startup metrics once done (on restart)
- duration of first compaction completion via debug logging
## Problem
The vectored read path proposed in
https://github.com/neondatabase/neon/pull/6576 seems
to be functionally correct, but in my testing (see below) it is about 10-20% slower than the naive
sequential vectored implementation.
## Summary of changes
There's three parts to this PR:
1. Supporting vectored blob reads. This is actually trickier than it
sounds because on disk blobs are prefixed with a variable length size header.
Since the blobs are not necessarily fixed size, we need to juggle the offsets
such that the callers can retrieve the blobs from the resulting buffer.
2. Merge disk read requests issued by the vectored read path up to a
maximum size. Again, the merging is complicated by the fact that blobs
are not fixed size. We keep track of the begin and end offset of each blob
and pass them into the vectored blob reader. In turn, the reader will return
a buffer and the offsets at which the blobs begin and end.
3. A benchmark for basebackup requests against tenant with large SLRU
block counts is added. This required a small change to pagebench and a new config
variable for the pageserver which toggles the vectored get validation.
We can probably optimise things further by adding a little bit of
concurrency for our IO. In principle, it's as simple as spawning a task which deals with issuing
IO and doing the serialisation and handling on the parent task which receives input via a
channel.
This reverts commits 587cb705b8 (PR #6661)
and fcbe9fb184 (PR #6842).
Conflicts:
pageserver/src/tenant.rs
pageserver/src/tenant/timeline.rs
The conflicts were with
* pageserver: adjust checkpoint distance for sharded tenants (#6852)
* pageserver: add vectored get implementation (#6576)
Also we had to keep the `allowed_errors` to make `test_forward_compatibility` happy,
see the PR thread on GitHub for details.
It's been dead-code-at-runtime for 9 months, let's remove it.
We can always re-introduce it at a later point.
Came across this while working on #6861, which will touch
`time_for_new_image_layer`. This is an opporunity to make that function
simpler.
587cb705b8
changed the layer rolling logic to more closely obey the
`checkpoint_distance` config. Previously, this test was getting
layers significantly larger than the 8K it was asking for. Now the
payload in the layers is closer to 8K (which means more layers in
total).
Tweak the `checkpoint_distance` to get a number of layers more
reasonable for this test. Note that we still get more layers than
before (~8K vs ~5K).
## Problem
`test_pageserver_max_throughput_getpage_at_latest_lsn` is flaky which
makes CI status red pretty frequently. `benchmarks` is not a blocking
job (doesn't block `deploy`), so having it red might hide failures in
other jobs
Ref: https://github.com/neondatabase/neon/issues/6724
## Summary of changes
- Disable `test_pageserver_max_throughput_getpage_at_latest_lsn` on CI
until it fixed
## Problem
See https://github.com/neondatabase/cloud/issues/8673
## Summary of changes
Download missed SLRU segments from page server
## Checklist before requesting a review
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my code.
- [ ] If it is a core feature, I have added thorough tests.
- [ ] Do we need to implement analytics? if so did you add the relevant
metrics to the dashboard?
- [ ] If this PR requires public announcement, mark it with
/release-notes label and add several sentences in this section.
## Checklist before merging
- [ ] Do not forget to reformat commit message to not include the above
checklist
---------
Co-authored-by: Konstantin Knizhnik <knizhnik@neon.tech>
Co-authored-by: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki@neon.tech>
## 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>
## Problem
`black` is slow sometimes, we can replace it with `ruff format` (a new
feature in 0.1.2 [0]), which produces pretty similar to black style [1].
On my local machine (MacBook M1 Pro 16GB):
```
# `black` on main
$ hyperfine "BLACK_CACHE_DIR=/dev/null poetry run black ."
Benchmark 1: BLACK_CACHE_DIR=/dev/null poetry run black .
Time (mean ± σ): 3.131 s ± 0.090 s [User: 5.194 s, System: 0.859 s]
Range (min … max): 3.047 s … 3.354 s 10 runs
```
```
# `ruff format` on the current PR
$ hyperfine "RUFF_NO_CACHE=true poetry run ruff format"
Benchmark 1: RUFF_NO_CACHE=true poetry run ruff format
Time (mean ± σ): 300.7 ms ± 50.2 ms [User: 259.5 ms, System: 76.1 ms]
Range (min … max): 267.5 ms … 420.2 ms 10 runs
```
## Summary of changes
- Replace `black` with `ruff format` everywhere
- [0] https://docs.astral.sh/ruff/formatter/
- [1] https://docs.astral.sh/ruff/formatter/#black-compatibility
## Problem
This is a comment only change.
To ensure that our benchmarking results are fair we need to have correct
stats in catalog. Otherwise optimizer chooses seq scan instead of index
only scan for some queries. Added comment to run vacuum after data prep.
This is a precursor to:
- https://github.com/neondatabase/neon/pull/6185
While that PR contains big changes to neon_local and attachment_service,
this PR contains a few unrelated standalone changes generated while
working on that branch:
- Fix restarting a pageserver when it contains multiple shards for the
same tenant
- When using location_config api to attach a tenant, create its
timelines dir
- Update test paths where generations were previously optional to make
them always-on: this avoids tests having to spuriously assert that
attachment_service is not None in order to make the linter happy.
- Add a TenantShardId python implementation for subsequent use in test
helpers that will be made shard-aware
- Teach scrubber to read across shards when checking for layer
existence: this is a refactor to track the list of existent layers at
tenant-level rather than locally to each timeline. This is a precursor
to testing shard splitting.
## Problem
To understand differences in performance between neon, aurora and rds we
want to collect explain analyze plans and pg_stat_statements for
selected benchmarking runs
## Summary of changes
Add workflow input options to collect explain and pg_stat_statements for
benchmarking workflow
Co-authored-by: BodoBolero <bodobolero@gmail.com>
## Problem
Test deletes tenant and recreates with the same ID. The recreation bumps
generation number. This could lead to stale generation warnings in the
logs.
## Summary of changes
Handle this more gracefully by re-creating in the same generation that
the tenant was previously attached in.
We could also update the tenant delete path to have the attachment
service to drop tenant state on delete, but I like having it there: it
makes debug easier, and the only time it's a problem is when a test is
re-using a tenant ID after deletion.
## Checklist before requesting a review
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my code.
- [ ] If it is a core feature, I have added thorough tests.
- [ ] Do we need to implement analytics? if so did you add the relevant
metrics to the dashboard?
- [ ] If this PR requires public announcement, mark it with
/release-notes label and add several sentences in this section.
## Checklist before merging
- [ ] Do not forget to reformat commit message to not include the above
checklist
## Problem
Since #5449 we enable generations in tests by default. Running
benchmarks was missed while merging that PR, and there was one that
needed updating.
## Summary of changes
Make test_bulk_insert use the proper generation-aware helper for tenant
creation.
This benchmark started failing after #5580 merged.
It was manually deleting some local content on a pageserver, and
expecting the behavior that the pageserver would "forget" about the
timeline on startup as a result. That is no longer our behavior:
pageservers use the remote storage as the source of truth.
Rather than having the test go manually delete things at all, we can
just delete the whole tenant via the pageserver API, and thereby start
from a clean situation.
## Problem
See https://github.com/neondatabase/company_projects/issues/111
## Summary of changes
Save logical replication files in WAL at compute and include them in
basebackup at pate server.
## Checklist before requesting a review
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my code.
- [ ] If it is a core feature, I have added thorough tests.
- [ ] Do we need to implement analytics? if so did you add the relevant
metrics to the dashboard?
- [ ] If this PR requires public announcement, mark it with
/release-notes label and add several sentences in this section.
## Checklist before merging
- [ ] Do not forget to reformat commit message to not include the above
checklist
---------
Co-authored-by: Konstantin Knizhnik <knizhnik@neon.tech>
Co-authored-by: Arseny Sher <sher-ars@yandex.ru>
## Problem
- `test_heavy_write_workload` is flaky, and fails because of to
statement timeout
- `test_wal_lagging` is flaky and fails because of the default pytest
timeout (see https://github.com/neondatabase/neon/issues/5305)
## Summary of changes
- `test_heavy_write_workload`: increase statement timeout to 5 minutes
(from default 2 minutes)
- `test_wal_lagging`: increase pytest timeout to 600s (from default
300s)
