A good rule of thumb is that a DBA should not let the size of his/her database grow to much more than 50% of the available disk space. I’m sure everyone has a story of being burned in some way by not following this advice.

Before promoting 5.1 to some beefier hardware, I’ve got a few large tables sitting on a small SATA-based machine. Noticing that a few were growing faster than I expected, i decided to pause my loading and convert another one of them to the archive storage engine to save some space.

I certainly saved space.

By trying to do too much at one time, I had some other temp files lying around on the same filesystem, and my conversion to the archive storage engine failed at about 80% through with my disk full.

mysql> alter table w_stats engine = Archive;
ERROR 1030 (HY000): Got error -1 from storage engine

mysql 5.1 has an unfortunate bug that I discovered, and reported, that causes the unfinished archive files to remain after the failed conversion, and not the original data. My disk space problems are no longer much of a problem

Now I know that this was basically my fault, and that I should have been more careful with my system, but I would have preferred maybe an embarassing error message, a slap on the wrist, not the loss of a 150GB table! For example:

mysql> alter table w_stats engine = Archive;
ERROR 1030 (HY000):  df -h is your friend

Well, it sounded funny in my head at least…

Testing MySQL sequential IO performance with different IO schedulers - Part 1

I stumbled upon an interesting article discussing the different Linux I/O schedulers that are available in the 2.6 kernel, and also discussing some of the deficiencies of the 2.4 “Linus elevator” I/O scheduler.

The default scheduler as of Kernel 2.6.18 is the “Completely fair queuing” scheduler, or CFQ. The previous default was the anticipatory scheduler between 2.6.0 and 2.6.17. Also available is a buffed-up version of the 2.4 scheduler called the deadline scheduler, and a “noop” scheduler. This article has a great discussion on what these schedulers mean for databases at a higher level.

Although old, some documentation in the kernel states  that database workloads should typically use the deadline scheduler. This tuning guide for Oracle on Linux gives, without much explanation, the same advice .

I don’t have the time at the moment to do a full analysis (hence part 1), but I did some quick tests and already got some pretty surprising results. I’m hoping to see if anyone else has done some tests along these lines that can comment further.

The test

I have a 140GB table sitting on a test machine with a simple 320GB SATA drive.

Changing the scheduler in newer kernels is a simple tunable parameter. You can change it to the deadline scheduler for your sda device, for example, as follows:

echo deadline > /sys/block/sda/queue/scheduler

I ran a simple count(*) on one of the partitions, 13GB in size, to see if there was a measurable difference between the schedulers. Memory size on this system is 4GB.

These are the results I got on an otherwise idle machine. The CFQ and anticipatory results were very consistent, almost to the second each time, while the deadline and no-op schedulers fluctuated as much as 50s per test. Not sure at this point why this is the case.

Now, these results come with the following caveats:

- These are not extensive, robust benchmarks, they’re just a few tests I ran against my very specific workload. I encourage people to try the different schedulers on different workloads and hardware and share results!
- These are test results with a large, sequential I/O workload that is very different from the random I/O intensive tests that most people are interested in.
- These are test results against a single ATA drive. These results are probably irrelevant in a hardware RAID context

In a future blog post, I will try to dig a bit deeper into these results and try the tests against hardware and software RAID. What i think can be taken from this already, and the referenced articles, is that CFQ should probably be used if your kernel has direct knowledge of the physical layout of your disks, eg. through LVM. Otherwise, deadline or even noop is probably your best bet if you are using hardware RAID, putting the burden on the hardware to decide how best to execute reads and writes.

If there is one thing that a DBA or data warehouse architect can count on, it is that data volumes will increase while budgets will decrease.

This is why MySQL 5.1 and its partitioning capabilities are so interesting. I’m going to demonstrate how you can build a small/medium-sized data warehouse or data mart (1-10 TB range) on a shoe-string budget.

the mission

I decided to convert a relatively large statistics table (750m rows, 140GB in size in about 10 partitions) on a test machine from MyISAM to the Archive storage engine. After a long conversion process, my data, on disk, ended up being about 21GB, for an impressive compression ratio of 6.7:1.

Prior to MySQL 5.1, one of the drawbacks to the archive storage engine was that you could not index it; however, with partition pruning, you can get yourself a “free” index on a large archive table by splitting it into date-based chunks, whether by day, week, month or year, depending on the volume of data you want to make accessible.

I decided to see how long it would take to run a simple aggregate query against a portion of one of the partitions I had created.

mysql> explain partitions select count(*) from stats where StatsTime between ‘2007-05-01′ and ‘2007-05-31′;
+—-+————-+————–+————+——+—————+——+———+——+———-+————-+
| id | select_type | table        | partitions | type | possible_keys | key  | key_len | ref  | rows     | Extra       |
+—-+————-+————–+————+——+—————+——+———+——+———-+————-+
|  1 | SIMPLE      | stats        | p_2007q2   | ALL  | NULL          | NULL | NULL    | NULL | 59558354 | Using where |
+—-+————-+————–+————+——+—————+——+———+——+———-+————-+
1 row in set (0.00 sec)

On disk, the partition was about 1.7G:

-rw-rw—- 1 mysql mysql 1.7G Jun 16 17:16 stats#P#p_2007q2.ARZ

After issuing the query, I watched iostat. The file being accessed was completely absent from filesystem cache because i had previous run a long query against a large MyISAM table. This is what I saw, fairly consistently:

avg-cpu:  %user   %nice %system %iowait  %steal   %idle
24.96    0.00    0.75    0.88    0.00   73.42

Device:         rrqm/s   wrqm/s   r/s   w/s    rMB/s    wMB/s avgrq-sz avgqu-sz   await  svctm  %util
sda              48.55     0.40 62.44  0.60     7.36     0.00   239.32     0.39    6.20   5.42  34.20


As expected with a highly-compressed table, the query speed is CPU-limited: the disk can go much faster but we are fully utilizing one of the four cores (notice 25% cpu utilization).

Back-of-the-envelope calculations suggest that, at 7.3mb/s read throughput from disk, and a 1.7G file to be read, that the query will complete in about:

1700mb / 7.3mb/s = 232s = 3m52s

mysql> select count(*) from stats where StatsTime between ‘2007-05-01′ and ‘2007-05-31′;
+———-+
| count(*) |
+———-+
|        0 |
+———-+
1 row in set (3 min 52.19 sec)

Dead on!

the possibilities

What is interesting is that from this we can deduce the effective throughput of an archive table based on how much data the disk is feeding the cpu.

If we attempted to run such a query on the original MyISAM partition (about 11.5GB), in order to complete the result in 232s, we would require a throughput of :

11500 / 232 = 49mb/s

50mb/s is not lightning fast, it’s about what you’d expect from a single SATA disk, but it’s still fairly good considering the amount of compression we’re getting.

But wait! You still have 3 more cores left on the machine. Now to confirm another hypothesis:

Testing two simultaneous queries, against the same partition:

select count(*) from stats where StatsTime between ‘2007-05-01′ and ‘2007-05-29′;
select count(*) from stats where StatsTime between ‘2007-05-01′ and ‘2007-05-30′;

Most of the data was in fs cache, so our iostat looked like this for most of the time:

avg-cpu:  %user   %nice %system %iowait  %steal   %idle
50.70    0.00    0.85    0.00    0.00   48.45

Device:         rrqm/s   wrqm/s   r/s   w/s    rMB/s    wMB/s avgrq-sz avgqu-sz   await  svctm  %util
sda               0.00     0.50  0.00  0.80     0.00     0.01    13.00     0.00    0.38   0.37   0.03
hda               0.00     0.00  0.00  0.00     0.00     0.00     0.00     0.00    0.00   0.00   0.00

Final runtime for both queries was 208s and 217s; suggesting that the queries were almost perfectly parallelized.

If we needed to run a beefy calculation against a year’s worth of data, for example, we could run four parallel queries (one per core per quarter) and aggregate the results for each query in a separate client. Now our “equivalent” 50mb/s throughput on one core has become 50mb/s * 4 = 200mb/s.

If you get a slightly faster disk, you could fully utilize an 8-core box for a throughput of 400mb/s.

And if your disk space is 750GB, factoring in the compression ratio, you are storing the equivalent of 5TB of non-compressed data with a potential read throughput of 200mb/s. Not too shabby for low-end hardware!