Re: WAL archive space planning?

Hello,

Official documents (since 7.2) do give us some formulation to evaluate
the space usage of WAL files.
It also depends on your how your environment configured.

1. https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.4/static/wal-configuration.html

There will always be at least one WAL segment file, and will normally not
be more than (2 + checkpoint_completion_target) * checkpoint_segments + 1
or checkpoint_segments + wal_keep_segments + 1 files. Each segment file is
normally 16 MB (though this size can be altered when building the server).
You can use this to estimate space requirements for WAL. Ordinarily, when
old log segment files are no longer needed, they are recycled (that is,
renamed to become future segments in the numbered sequence). If, due to a
short-term peak of log output rate, there are more than 3 *
checkpoint_segments + 1 segment files, the unneeded segment files will be
deleted instead of recycled until the system gets back under this limit.

2. https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.4/static/continuous-archiving.html
It is important that the archive command return zero exit status if and
only if it succeeds. Upon getting a zero result, PostgreSQL will assume
that the file has been successfully archived, and will remove or recycle
it. However, a nonzero status tells PostgreSQL that the file was not
archived; it will try again periodically until it succeeds.

BR,
Steven

2017-03-18 5:39 GMT+08:00 Jerry Sievers <gsievers19(at)comcast(dot)net>:

> Scott Whitney <scott(at)journyx(dot)com> writes:
>
> > Forgive me if this has been explained well in the past. You can probably
> search my name for discussions on this...
> >
> > I fail to see why WAL archiving is either required or desired in a
> streaming replication scenario WHERE ONE NEVER NEEDS PITR.
>
> If you don't mind losing sync from standby to master and having to
> refresh the standby from scratch after for any reason streaming
> connectivity is lost (and/or standby falls out of sync due to a too
> heavy volume)... then fine.
>
> In practice you need both to allow standbys to catch up again after an a
> break.
>
> A busy master can overrun a streaming standby at times just due to
> volume, perhaps complicated by IO throughput on the standby.
>
> Your standby may go down undetected... it may lag beyond what the
> master still has in pg_xlog to satisfy simply due to configured in
> replication lag tolerance to support reporting workloads.
>
> To name a few :-)
>
> True in an uncomplicated setup being able to fetch WALs from a remote
> archive site is not strictly necessary.
>
> It's also the case with newer Pg releases, that if you use a binary rep
> slot, your master will hold WAL forever in its own pg_xlog directory
> until a down standby comes alive and reads the data but then your
> production master is at risk of disk filling if the unresponsive standby
> isn't dealt with eventually.
>
> HTH
>
> > I have 2 "production" servers. One is paid customers, and one is
> customer-facing test and training. Let us call the one that I care about
> bigDb and the other littleDb.
> >
> > littleDb replicates bigDb in real-time. They both back up nightly. They
> are in the same data center.
> >
> > At my home office, I have otherDb which replicates BOTH and runs
> independent backups nightly.
> >
> > I have to have a secondary data center. Let's call that otherCityBigDb
> and otherCityLittleDb. They stream replication.
> >
> > There is nowhere in the world where I am responsible for rolling back to
> anything.
> >
> > Why would one EVER want WAL archiving? It seems like you are planning
> for failure.
> >
> > On Mar 13, 2017 10:55 PM, Steven Chang <stevenchang1213(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Dears,
> >
> > Just read a posgres monitoring moudule named check-postres,
> which is a ready enhance package on Debian Linux Distribution.
> >
> > https://bucardo.org/check_postgres/check_postgres.pl.html
> >
> > here is its readme about wal_files
> > Maybe you can also use this module to help plan your space usage
> of WAL files.
> >
> > wal_files
> > ("symlink: check_postgres_wal_files") Checks how many WAL
> files exist in the
> > pg_xlog directory, which is found off of your data_directory,
> sometimes as a
> > symlink to another physical disk for performance reasons.
> This action must be
> > run as a superuser, in order to access the contents of the
> pg_xlog directory.
> > The minimum version to use this action is Postgres 8.1. The
> --warning and
> > --critical options are simply the number of files in the
> pg_xlog directory. What
> > number to set this to will vary, but a general guideline is
> to put a number
> > slightly higher than what is normally there, to catch
> problems early.
> >
> > Normally, WAL files are closed and then re-used, but a
> long-running open
> > transaction, or a faulty archive_command script, may cause
> Postgres to create
> > too many files. Ultimately, this will cause the disk they are
> on to run out of
> > space, at which point Postgres will shut down.
> >
> > 2017-02-22 3:45 GMT+08:00 Keith <keith(at)keithf4(dot)com>:
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 2:33 PM, Ray Stell <stellr(at)vt(dot)edu>
> wrote:
> >
> > On 2/21/17 12:26 PM, Keith wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 12:22 PM, Ray Stell <
> stellr(at)vt(dot)edu> wrote:
> >
> > On 2/21/17 12:09 AM, Steven Chang wrote:
> >
> > check this, his 2nd part introduces Stream
> Replication Implementation and tell you px_log retention and wal archive
> related parameters.
> > https://www.itenlight.com/
> blog/2016/05/19/PostgreSQL+HA+with+pgpool-II+-+Part+2
> >
> > 2017-02-18 2:30 GMT+08:00 Ray Stell <
> stellr(at)vt(dot)edu>:
> >
> > I was "planning" to turn on WAL archiving on
> a postgresql 9.4.11 server that currently is running with
> "wal_level=hot_standby" and streaming
> > to a standby. I thought there would be a
> relationship between the rate of pg_xlog files and archive generation.
> When I turned up the
> > archive_command/mode I found the scale of
> the archive target was wrong as I had based it on the pg_xlog file creation
> rate.
> >
> > When I turned on the archive command for a
> few minutes, pg_xlog dir contained these files for the time period:
> >
> > -rw------- 1 postgres postgres 16777216 Feb
> 17 06:47 00000001000023AC0000007F
> > -rw------- 1 postgres postgres 16777216 Feb
> 17 06:45 00000001000023AC0000007E
> >
> > The archive command wrote 126, 16MB files:
> >
> > -rw------- 1 postgres postgres 16777216 Feb
> 17 06:47 000000010000237700000056
> > -rw------- 1 postgres postgres 16777216 Feb
> 17 06:47 000000010000237700000055
> > -rw------- 1 postgres postgres 16777216 Feb
> 17 06:47 000000010000237700000054
> > -rw------- 1 postgres postgres 16777216 Feb
> 17 06:47 000000010000237700000053
> > ...
> >
> > -rw------- 1 postgres postgres 16777216 Feb
> 17 06:45 0000000100002376000000DC
> > -rw------- 1 postgres postgres 16777216 Feb
> 17 06:45 0000000100002376000000DB
> > -rw------- 1 postgres postgres 16777216 Feb
> 17 06:45 0000000100002376000000DA
> > -rw------- 1 postgres postgres 16777216 Feb
> 17 06:45 0000000100002376000000D9
> >
> > On servers that are not nearly as busy, I
> observe a one-to-one relationship between these files/rates.
> >
> > Is there a good WAL archive space planning
> guide?
> >
> > Is the way to collect planning data for this
> to turn on wal_debug?
> >
> > TIA!
> >
> > --
> > Sent via pgsql-admin mailing list (
> pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> > To make changes to your subscription:
> > http://www.postgresql.org/
> mailpref/pgsql-admin
> >
> > I'm interested in why I might observed a dramatic
> difference between pg_xlog files and the archive target files. Other dbs I
> see have them pretty
> > much one-to-one, but not in this case here. What
> might cause the large variation? I got only a few pg_xlogs files each
> minute and 42 archive files
> > /min.
> >
> > Ray,
> >
> > Did you see my previous response about the
> archive_timeout setting?
> >
> > Lost your post somehow, but I see it in the list archive.
> Thanks, Keith.
> >
> > There was a 30 minute timeout set, but I would not think
> that would increase the archive file generation as observed, does it?
> >
> > " When this parameter is greater than zero, the server will
> switch to a new segment file whenever this many seconds have elapsed since
> the last segment file
> > switch, and there has been any database activity, including
> a single checkpoint. (Increasing checkpoint_timeout will reduce unnecessary
> checkpoints on an
> > idle system.) "
> >
> > Your post seems to indicate having a non-zero value might
> increase the number of archive files, is that so? Maybe it is in
> milliseconds which might make
> > sense with the observed archive rate, but the doc says
> seconds and it was set to 1800. I can set it to 0 and see if it changes
> things, but I'm a little
> > confused.
> >
> > If it was set to 30 minutes, then no, it wouldn't explain what
> you saw. But we didn't know what it was set to, so that's why I asked. Make
> sure you're checking
> > the value actually set in the database, and not just what's in
> postgresql.conf, since it could've changed but never been reloaded to put
> in place (type "show
> > archive_timeout" in psql).
> >
> > If that's not it, not sure what may be causing what you're
> seeing.
> >
> > Keith
> >
> > Journyx, Inc.
> > 7600 Burnet Road #300
> > Austin, TX 78757
> > www.journyx.com
> >
> > p 512.834.8888
> > f 512-834-8858
> >
> > Do you receive our promotional emails? You can subscribe or unsubscribe
> to those emails at http://go.journyx.com/emailPreference/e/4932/714/
> >
>
> --
> Jerry Sievers
> Postgres DBA/Development Consulting
> e: postgres(dot)consulting(at)comcast(dot)net
> p: 312.241.7800
>