Re: Is there a significant difference in Memory settings between 9.5 and 12

On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 9:01 PM Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 2:52 PM Tory M Blue <tmblue(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > It took the change but didn't help. So 10GB of shared_buffers in 12 is
> still a no go. I'm down to 5GB and it works, but this is the same hardware,
> the same exact 9.5 configuration. So I'm missing something. WE have not had
> to mess with kernel memory settings since 9.4, so this is an odd one.
> >
> > I'll keep digging, but i'm hesitant to do my multiple TB db's with half
> of their shared buffer configs, until I understand what 12 is doing
> differently than 9.5
>
> Which exact version of 9.5.x are you coming from? What's the exact
> error message on 12 (you showed the shared_memory_type=sysv error, but
> with the default value (mmap) how does it look)? What's your
> huge_pages setting?
>

9.5-20
postgresql95-9.5.20-2PGDG.rhel7.x86_64
postgresql95-contrib-9.5.20-2PGDG.rhel7.x86_64
postgresql95-libs-9.5.20-2PGDG.rhel7.x86_64
postgresql95-server-9.5.20-2PGDG.rhel7.x86_64

I don't use huge_pages

And this error is actually from the default mmap

May 08 12:33:58 qdb01.prod.ca postmaster[8790]: < 2020-05-08 12:33:58.324
PDT >HINT: This error usually means that PostgreSQL's request for a
shared memory segment exceeded available memory, swap space, or huge pages.
To reduce the request size (currently 11026235392 bytes), reduce
PostgreSQL's shared memory usage, perhaps by reducing shared_buffers or
max_connections.

The above error is with 12 trying to start with shared_buffers = 10GB...

9.5 starts fine with the same configuration file. That kind of started me
down this path.

And just to repeat. Same exact hardware, same kernel, nothing more than
installing the latest postgres12, copying my config files from 9.5 to 12
and running the pg_upgrade.

9.5 has been running for years with the same configuration file, so
something changed somewhere along the line that is preventing 12 to start
with the same config file. And the allocation error is with either the
sysv or mman on 12. (will start with 5GB allocated, but not 10GB, on a 15GB
box (dedicated postgres server).

> Can you reproduce the problem with a freshly created test cluster? As
> a regular user, assuming regular RHEL packaging, something like
> /usr/pgsql-12/bin/initdb -D test_pgdata, and then
> /usr/pgsql-12/bin/postgres -D test_pgdata -c shared_buffers=10GB (then
> ^C to stop it). If that fails to start in the same way, it'd be
> interesting to see the output of the second command with strace in
> front of it, in the part where it allocates shared memory. And
> perhaps it'd be interesting to see the same output with
> /usr/pgsql-9.5/bin/XXX (if you still have the packages). For example,
> on my random dev laptop that looks like:
>
> openat(AT_FDCWD, "/proc/meminfo", O_RDONLY) = 6
> fstat(6, {st_mode=S_IFREG|0444, st_size=0, ...}) = 0
> read(6, "MemTotal: 16178852 kB\nMemF"..., 1024) = 1024
> read(6, ": 903168 kB\nShmemHugePages: "..., 1024) = 311
> close(6) = 0
> mmap(NULL, 11016339456, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE,
> MAP_SHARED|MAP_ANONYMOUS|MAP_HUGETLB, -1, 0) = -1 ENOMEM (Cannot
> allocate memory)
> mmap(NULL, 11016003584, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE,
> MAP_SHARED|MAP_ANONYMOUS, -1, 0) = 0x7ff74e579000
> shmget(0x52e2c1, 56, IPC_CREAT|IPC_EXCL|0600) = 3244038
> shmat(3244038, NULL, 0) = 0x7ff9df5ad000
>
> The output is about the same on REL9_5_STABLE and REL_12_STABLE for
> me, only slightly different sizes. If that doesn't fail in the same
> way on your system with 12, perhaps there are some more settings from
> your real clusters required to make it fail. You could add them one
> by one with -c foo=bar or in the throw away
> test_pgdata/postgresql.conf, and perhaps that process might shed some
> light?
>
> I was going to ask if it might be a preloaded extension that is asking
> for gobs of extra memory in 12, but we can see from your "Failed
> system call was shmget(key=5432001, size=11026235392, 03600)" that
> it's in the same ballpark as my total above for shared_buffers=10GB.
>

Be more than happy to test this out. I'll see what I can pull tomorrow and
provide some dataz :) I know it's not ideal to use the same config file,
I know that various things are added or changed (usually added) but the
defaults are typically safe. But after sometime dialing in the settings for
our use case, I've just kind of kept moving them forward.

But let me do some more testing tomorrow (since I'm trying to get to the
bottom of this, before I attempt my big DB upgrades). So I'll spend some
time testing and see if I can't get similar "failures/challenges"? and go
from there.

Appreciate the ideas!

Tory