← Back to team overview

maria-developers team mailing list archive

Re: More suggestions for changing option names for optimistic parallel replication


I still prefer "auto" as default,

if you want the fine grained control, I think an optimizer_switch approach
is better than adding X new config options, i.e
don't you think that there will be new options/variants ? i do
don't you think you will want to remove options/variants ? i do

I don't like having the word "transaction" in the names of some modes, ALL
variants will maintain transaction semantics.
Having "transaction" is name of only a few sort of implies that others are
not transactional...

i think "optimistic" is better than "transactional" or "all_transactions".
in the same spirit "conservative" could be "follow_master_commits"

i don't understand what "only_commits" is, how can it prepare transaction
"queue up" for group commit
if only 1 is prepared in parallel ?


though, i think all suggestions might work if they have good defaults and a
solid implementation


On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 9:06 PM, Pavel Ivanov <pivanof@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 5:49 AM, Kristian Nielsen
> <knielsen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > I discussed with Monty, and we came up with some more suggested changes
> for
> > the options used to configure the optimistic parallel replication feature
> > (MDEV-6676, https://mariadb.atlassian.net/browse/MDEV-6676).
> >
> > The biggest change is to split up the --slave-parallel-mode into multiple
> > options. I think that is reasonable, probably that option was doing too
> many
> > things at once.
> >
> > Instead, we could have the following three options:
> >
> > --slave-parallel-mode=all_transactions | " |
> >                       only_commits | none
> >
> >     "all_transactions" is what was called "transactional" before. The
> slave
> >     will try to apply all transactional DML in parallel; in case of
> conflicts
> >     it will roll back the later transaction and retry it.
> >
> >     "follow_master_commits" is the 10.0 functionality, apply in parallel
> >     transactions that group-committed together on the master (the
> default).
> >
> >     "only_commits" was suggested to me by a user testing parallel
> >     replication. It does not attempt to apply transactions in parallel,
> but
> >     still runs the commit steps in parallel, making slave group commit
> >     possible and thus saving on fsyncs if durability settings are on.
> Does this mean that group commit will be possible if slave is able to
> execute several transactions consecutively while previous transaction
> commits/fsyncs?
> I'd suggest to name this option differently because looking just at
> the list of available values it's not quite clear what could be the
> difference between follow_master_commits and only_commits. I don't
> know yet what is the best name for this. Maybe overlap_commits?
i also don't understand what only_commits means,
how can it prepare transaction "queue up" for group commit
if only 1 is prepared in parallel ?

> >     "none" means the parallel replication code is not used (same as
> >     --slave-parallel-threads=0, but now configurable per multimaster
> >     connection). (This corresponds to empty value in old
> >     --slave-parallel-mode).
> >
> > --slave-parallel-domains=on|off     (default on)
> >
> >     "This replaces the "domain" option of old --slave-parallel-mode. When
> >     enabled, parallel replication will apply in parallel transactions
> whose
> >     GTID has different domain ids (GTID mode only).
> I don't understand what would be the meaning of combining this flag
> with --slave-parallel-mode. Does it mean that when this flag is on
> transactions from different domains are executed on "all_transactions"
> level of parallelism no matter what value --slave-parallel-mode has?
> What will happen if this flag off but
> --slave-parallel-mode=all_transactions?
> I feel like you are up to something here, but implementing it using
> this flag is not quite right.
> > --slave-parallel-wait-if-conflict-on-master=on|off  (default on)
> >
> >     When enabled, if a transaction had to do a row lock wait on the
> master, it
> >     will not be applied in parallel with any earlier transaction on the
> slave
> >     (idea is that such transaction is likely to get a conflict on the
> slave,
> >     causing a needless retry). (This was the "waiting" option to old
> >     --slave-parallel-mode).
> Hm... The fact that a transaction did a lock wait on master doesn't
> mean that the conflicting transaction was committed on master, or that
> both of these transactions were committed close enough to even make it
> possible to be executed in parallel on slaves, right? Are you sure
> that this flag will be useful?
> > These options will also be usable per multi-source master connection,
> like
> > --master1.slave-parallel-mode=all_transactions. The options will be
> possible
> > to change dynamically also (with SET GLOBAL), though the associated slave
> > threads must be stopped while changing.
> >
> > Also, Monty suggested to rename @@replicate_allow_parallel to
> >
> >     @@SESSION.replicate_expect_conflicts=0|1   (default 0)
> >
> > When this option is enabled on the master when a transaction is
> committed,
> > that transaction will not be applied in parallel with earlier
> transactions
> > (when --slave-parallel-mode=all_transactions). This can be used to reduce
> > retries on the slave, if an application is about to do a transaction
> that is
> > likely to cause a conflict and retry on a slave if applied in parallel
> with
> > earlier transactions.
> I think this variable will be completely useless and is not worth
> implementing. How user will understand that the transaction he is
> about to execute is likely to conflict with another transactions
> committed at about the same time? I think it will be completely
> impossible to do that judgement, at the same time it will give too
> much impact on the slave's behavior into users' hands. Am I missing
> something? What kind of scenario you are envisioning this variable to
> be used in?
> > Let me know if there are any comments to these or suggestions for
> changes. It
> > is best to get these as right as possible before release (seems the
> intention
> > is to include optimistic parallel replication in 10.1), since it is the
> > user-visible part of the feature.
> >
> > With these option names, the normal way to use optimistic parallel
> replication
> > would be these two options in my.cnf:
> >
> >    slave_parallel_mode=all_transactions
> >    slave_parallel_threads=20  (or whatever)
> >
> > This seems reasonably, I think. None of the other options would need be
> > considered except in more special cases.
> Hope that helps,
> Pavel

Follow ups