on io scheduling again

Most of database engines have to deal with underlying layers – operating systems, device drivers, firmware and physical devices, albeit different camps choose different methods.
In MySQL world people believe that InnoDB should be handling all the memory management and physical storage operations – maximized buffer pool space, adaptive/fuzzy flushing, crash recovery getting faster, etc. That can result in lots of efficiency wins, as managing everything with data problem in mind allows to tune for efficiency and performance.

Other storage systems (though I hear it from engineers on different types of problems too) like PostgreSQL or MongoDB consider OS to be much smarter and let it do caching or buffering. Which means that in top Postgres expert presentations you will hear much more about operating systems than in MySQL talks. This results in OS knowledge attrition in MySQL world (all you have to know is “use O_DIRECT, XFS and deadline scheduler”), yet Linux virtual memory behaviors and tuning are a constant issue where OS is allowed to cache or buffer.

This leads to very interesting behaviors – both PostgreSQL and MongoDB worlds have to deal with write starvation at checkpoint spikes – where no other operations can happen while data from dirty buffers is being written out to storage media. To help alleviate that instead of aiming to better managed I/O, they aim to keep less dirty pages in memory altogether. For example in Mongo world you will hear tuning recommendation to write out dirty pages once a second rather than once a minute (thus causing shorter stalls every second rather than system going dark every minute). Dirtying all the pages every second means that there is not much write merging going on and system is consuming expensive flash write cycles much faster than needed.

MySQL (and Flashcache) have demand driven checkpointing – pages are written out either if they are at the end of LRU and need to make space for fresh pages or too much log capacity is used and pages referred in oldest log events have to be synced. I prefer demand driven checkpointing much more as it means that system adapts to the workload and optimizes towards efficiency rather than performance workarounds.

So once I saw insert operations stalling for nearly a second in my tests on super-capable modern hardware (PCI-E flash, 144GB of RAM, etc), I started looking more at what can be done to eliminate such stalls. In order to be both efficient and not stall one has to do two things – reduce number of writes and prioritize important ones first. This is where the concept of “I/O scheduling” first comes to mind. As there’s lots of reliance on OS to do the right work, I looked at what exactly is being done.

From overall general perspective database workload on I/O stack looks like this:

buffered block layer


Alright, I probably could’ve done a better job at making a diagram, but my main observations here are that block layer has no idea what files you are talking to, only page reads and writes coming from various sources (threads/processes), all coming to single block device. There are some other interesting issues. For example a dirty page write is attributed not to the thread that modified the page, but the one that decided to flush it (so it is either some variant of pdflush, or userland thread calling fsync() or msync()).

So, to properly schedule things we need to inform operating system better about our intentions. The standard in database world is deadline scheduler, which separates reads and writes into separate queues and thats about it – it does not try to distinguish different types of writes coming from different sources. CFQ is much more complicated and allows to put different threads into different classes (realtime, best effort or idle) and priorities. Unfortunately, even if I attribute workloads correctly with I/O scheduling properties I hit another issue:

buffered block layer log


My two threads, one that has to get through ASAP in order not to stall system operations is actually stalling not because it cannot write its data soon enough, but because shared resource (file system journal) is being written (and delayed by scheduler) by idle or best-effort workloads.

There are two ways to deal with this, one is instructing file system to behave nicely and write its own journal with realtime scheduling, as otherwise it will stall other parts, or much simpler one – put transaction journal onto a separate file system (I can hear millions of “I told you so” voices, all forgetting that e.g. MongoDB does not even have configuration option where to put the journal and you have to hack your way around with symbolic links).

Obviously putting on completely independent device would also make sure that I/O scheduling is a non-issue too, but having multiple independent devices costs money, so we will have to still think about how to schedule things properly.

One would think that CFQ suddenly should be much more appealing as it allows to specify workload properties but the way it behaves is not exactly predictable. What one needs is much more straightforward rule set – don’t starve logs, don’t starve reads, allow other stuff to be drained eventually.

Technically, some of scheduling decisions can be simply be made by logical block addresses that get accessed (e.g. file system journal or DBMS transaction log) – and not by which thread is doing it – but interfaces to do that now are nonexistent.

There has been some interesting IO scheduler development at Taobao – they created FusionIO-oriented cgroups capable “tiny parallel proportion scheduler” for their MySQL workloads, that makes lots of sense in multi-tenant environments, but doesn’t yet address the problem of I/O starvation within same process that MongoDB has.

Currently if one wants to run Mongo or PG with perfect p99 (or pmax) behaviors, CFQ does not fully provide decent guarantees even with separate filesystems, and deadline is too limited in its scope. There should be more innovation in how user-land / file system / block layer cooperation should look like, rather than assuming that throwing hardware at the problem (or ignoring bad quality) is good enough.

That may be useful in InnoDB world some day too – I have seen issues where asynchronous batch write or read-ahead IO coming from many threads had capabilities to starve other workloads.

I tried some easy way out in some of the cases – currently MongoDB flushes one file at a time sequentially by calling msync() – which means up to 2GB flushes with default configuration or 512MB with “smallfiles” option. What one needs is much more predictable behavior, such as “flush 10MB at a time, wait for that to complete”. As it is not exactly tracked internally which pages are dirty and which are not, there is no way to provide that kind of throttling with current OS interfaces.

Though MongoDB already uses mincore() system call to check whether a page is cached in memory, there is no way yet to find out whether page is actually dirty (there have been LKML threads about providing that information). If there was an easy interface to get maps of dirty data from OS, database software would be able to schedule less aggressive writes without relying upon perfect I/O scheduler behavior.

P.S. Yes, I just blogged about MongoDB performance, albeit Mark Callaghan has been doing it for a while.

Logs memory pressure

Warning, this may be kernel version specific, albeit this kernel is used by many database systems

Lately I’ve been working on getting more memory used by InnoDB buffer pool – besides obvious things like InnoDB memory tax there were seemingly external factors that were pushing out MySQL into swap (even with swappiness=0). We were working a lot on getting low hanging fruits like scripts that use too much memory, but they seem to be all somewhat gone, but MySQL has way too much memory pressure from outside.

I grabbed my uncache utility to assist with the investigation and started uncaching various bits on two systems, one that had larger buffer pool (60G), which was already being sent to swap, and a conservatively allocated (55G) machine, both 72G boxes. Initial finds were somewhat surprising – apparently on both machines most of external-to-mysqld memory was conserved by two sets of items:

  • binary logs – write once, read only tail (sometimes, if MySQL I/O cache cannot satisfy) – we saw nearly 10G consumed by binlogs on conservatively allocated machines
  • transaction logs – write many, read never (by MySQL), buffered I/O – full set of transaction logs was found in memory

It was remarkably easy to get rid of binlogs from cache, both by calling out ‘uncache’ from scripts, or using this tiny Python class:

libc = ctypes.CDLL("libc.so.6")
class cachedfile (file):
    def uncache(self):
        libc.posix_fadvise(self.fileno(), 0, 0, self.FADV_DONTNEED)

As it was major memory stress source, it was somewhat a no brainer that binlogs have to be removed from cache – something that can be serially re-read is taking space away from a buffer pool which avoids random reads. It may make sense to call posix_fadvise() right after writes to them, even.

Transaction logs, on the other hand, are entirely different beast. From MySQL perspective they should be uncached immediately, as nobody ever ever reads them (crash recovery aside, but re-reading then is relatively cheap, as no writes or random reads are done during log read phase). Unfortunately, the problem lies way below MySQL, and thanks to PeterZ for reminding me (we had a small chat about this at Jeremy’s Silicon Valley MySQL Meetup).

MySQL transaction records are stored in multiple log groups per transaction, then written out as per-log-group writes (each is in multiple of 512 bytes), followed by fsync(). This allows FS to do transaction log write as single I/O operation. This also means that it will be doing partial page writes to buffered files – overwriting existing data in part of the page, so it has to be read from storage.

So, if all transaction log pages are removed from cache, quite some of them will have to be read back in (depending on sizes of transactions, probably all of them in some cases). Oddly enough, when I tried to hit the edge case, single thread transactions-per-second remained same, but I saw consistent read I/O traffic on disks. So, this would probably work on systems, that have spare I/O (e.g. flash based ones).

Of course, as writes are already in multiples of 512 (and appears that memory got allocated just fine), I could try out direct I/O – it should avoid page read-in problem and not cause any memory pressure by itself. In this case switching InnoDB to use O_DIRECT was a bit dirtier – one needs to edit source code and rebuild the server, restart, etc, or…

# lsof ib_logfile*
# gdb -p $(pidof mysqld)
(gdb) call os_file_set_nocache(9, "test", "test")
(gdb) call os_file_set_nocache(10, "test", "test")

I did not remove fsync() call, but as it is somewhat noop on O_DIRECT files, I left it there, probably it would change benchmark results, but not much.

Some observations:

  • O_DIRECT was ~10% faster at best case scenario – lots of tiny transactions in single thread
  • If group commit is used (without binlogs), InnoDB can have way more transactions with multiple threads using buffered I/O, as it does multiple writes per fsync
  • Enabling sync_binlog makes the difference not that big – even with many parallel writes direct writes are 10-20% slower than buffered ones
  • Same for innodb_flush_log_on_trx_commit0 – multiple writes per fsync are much more efficient with buffered I/O
  • One would need to do log group merge to have more efficient O_DIRECT for larger transactions
  • O_DIRECT does not have theoretical disadvantage, current deficiencies are just implementation oriented at buffered I/O – and can be resolved by (in same areas – extensive) engineering
  • YMMV. In certain cases it definitely makes sense even right now, in some other – not so much

So, the outcome here depends on many variables – with flash read-on-write is not as expensive, especially if read-ahead works. With disks one has to see what is better use for the memory – using it for buffer pool reduces amount of data reads, but causes log reads. And of course, O_DIRECT wins in the long run :-)

With this data moved away from cache and InnoDB memory tax reduced one could switch from using 75 % of memory to 90% or even 95% for InnoDB buffer pools. Yay?

Notes from land of I/O

A discussion on IRC sparkled some interest on how various I/O things work in Linux. I wrote small microbenchmarking program (where all configuration is in source file, and I/O modes can be changed by editing various places in code ;-), and started playing with performance.

The machine for this testing was RAID10 16disk box with 2.6.24 kernel, and I tried to understand how O_DIRECT works, and how fsync() works and ended up digging into some other stuff.

My notes for now are:

  • O_DIRECT serializes writes to a file on ext2, ext3, jfs, so I got at most 200-250w/s.
  • xfs allows parallel (and out-of-order, if that matters) DIO, so I got 1500-2700w/s (depending on file size – seek time changes.. :) of random I/O without write-behind caching. There are few outstanding bugs that lock this down back to 250w/s (#xfs@freenode: “yeah, we drop back to taking the i_mutex in teh case where we are writing beyond EOF or we have cached pages”, so
    posix_fadvise(fd, 0, filesize, POSIX_FADV_DONTNEED)


  • fsync(),sync(),fdatasync() wait if there are any writes, bad part – it can wait forever. Filesystems people say thats a bug – it shouldn’t wait for I/O that happened after sync being called. I tend to believe, as it causes stuff like InnoDB semaphore waits and such.

Of course, having write-behind caching at the controller (or disk, *shudder*) level allows filesystems to be lazy (and benchmarks are no longer that different), but having the upper layers work efficiently is quite important too, to avoid bottlenecks.

It is interesting, that write-behind caching isn’t needed that much anymore for random writes, once filesystem parallelizes I/O, even direct, nonbuffered one.

Anyway, now that I found some of I/O properties and issues, should probably start thinking how they apply to the upper layers like InnoDB.. :)