In the last few days, I'm having this weird issue with my Serverless Postgres RDS.
After deploying new code to the backend service the RDS server becomes unavailable, the only logs I could find are those :
Freeable Memory (MB):
The only document I found is this one, which said AWS working on fixing this issue.
Any help will be much appreciated.
As per the AWS Blog on RDS serverless best practices:
Aurora Serverless scales up when capacity constraints are seen in CPU or connections. However, finding a scaling point can take time (see the Scale-blocking operations section). If there is a sudden spike in requests, you can overwhelm the database. Aurora Serverless might not be able to find a scaling point and scale quickly enough due to a shortage of resources.
The error - Error restarting database: Unable to find shared memory value in the postgres.log file from pg_ctl getSharedMemory command ideally would replace to memory allocation issue.
The best way to handle it would be to keep a buffer/minimum higher allocation of memory while expecting a load on the server.
Related
I'm using a Cloud SQL proxy sidecar on my nodejs API service.
It appears to work great, except that approximately 1% of my API requests come back with an error indicating that the DB connection failed with:
connect ECONNREFUSED 127.0.0.1:3306
My backend logs show that this was thrown from my ORM when it attempted to connect to the DB.
Sidecar logs show nothing, and the CloudSQL instance in question shows nothing out of the ordinary (17/4000 connections, <1% CPU usage, 1.5/3.5GiB memory usage, <100KiB ingress/egress per time slice on 6 hour window).
What might be causing this?
Edit: additional information:
All my pods have been up for many hours with 0 restarts, so the intermittent failure isn't a transient startup failure.
Logs show that this has been occurring intermittently since 30 days ago.
Here are a few reasons that can cause a Cloud SQL instance to become inaccessible:
1) Connection failure between your instance and the agents Cloud SQL uses to monitor the health of your instance
2) Synchronization of operations between your instance and the Cloud SQL service
3) Underprovisioning of resources, such as CPU cores, RAM, and/or storage, to your Cloud SQL instance (see Cloud SQL's Operational Guidelines [1] for additional information).
Since there are several reasons which could cause connections to be dropped (many of which are intricately related to the specifics of your project's implementation and environment), it's extremely complex to diagnose abnormal connection rejection. Additionally, Cloud SQL continuously monitors for any issues that can make an instance inaccessible and automatically takes action to resolve these issues.
Under normal circumstances, the error rate will not fully go away, but should happen at a very low level [2]. There are, of course, some conditions that can make it worse - both production issues as well as certain combinations of operations.
In any case, the recommendation under such circumstances is to implement a retry strategy for reconnection to the instances with exponential backoff. Some of the client libraries already have supporting code in place, but it depends a bit on what you're exactly using.
[1] https://cloud.google.com/sql/docs/mysql/operational-guidelines
[2] https://cloud.google.com/sql/sla
We are running load test against an application that hits a Postgres database.
During the test, we suddenly get an increase in error rate.
After analysing the platform and application behaviour, we notice that:
CPU of Postgres RDS is 100%
Freeable memory drops on this same server
And in the postgres logs, we see:
2018-08-21 08:19:48 UTC::#:[XXXXX]:LOG: server process (PID XXXX) was terminated by signal 9: Killed
After investigating and reading documentation, it appears one possibility is linux oomkiller running having killed the process.
But since we're on RDS, we cannot access system logs /var/log messages to confirm.
So can somebody:
confirm that oom killer really runs on AWS RDS for Postgres
give us a way to check this ?
give us a way to compute max memory used by Postgres based on number of connections ?
I didn't find the answer here:
http://postgresql.freeideas.cz/server-process-was-terminated-by-signal-9-killed/
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAOR%3Dd%3D25iOzXpZFY%3DSjL%3DWD0noBL2Fio9LwpvO2%3DSTnjTW%3DMqQ%40mail.gmail.com
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/04e301d1fee9%24537ab200%24fa701600%24%40JetBrains.com
AWS maintains a page with best practices for their RDS service: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonRDS/latest/UserGuide/CHAP_BestPractices.html
In terms of memory allocation, that's the recommendation:
An Amazon RDS performance best practice is to allocate enough RAM so
that your working set resides almost completely in memory. To tell if
your working set is almost all in memory, check the ReadIOPS metric
(using Amazon CloudWatch) while the DB instance is under load. The
value of ReadIOPS should be small and stable. If scaling up the DB
instance class—to a class with more RAM—results in a dramatic drop in
ReadIOPS, your working set was not almost completely in memory.
Continue to scale up until ReadIOPS no longer drops dramatically after
a scaling operation, or ReadIOPS is reduced to a very small amount.
For information on monitoring a DB instance's metrics, see Viewing DB Instance Metrics.
Also, that's their recommendation to troubleshoot possible OS issues:
Amazon RDS provides metrics in real time for the operating system (OS)
that your DB instance runs on. You can view the metrics for your DB
instance using the console, or consume the Enhanced Monitoring JSON
output from Amazon CloudWatch Logs in a monitoring system of your
choice. For more information about Enhanced Monitoring, see Enhanced
Monitoring
There's a lot of good recommendations there, including query tuning.
Note that, as a last resort, you could switch to Aurora, which is compatible with PostgreSQL:
Aurora features a distributed, fault-tolerant, self-healing storage
system that auto-scales up to 64TB per database instance. Aurora
delivers high performance and availability with up to 15 low-latency
read replicas, point-in-time recovery, continuous backup to Amazon S3,
and replication across three Availability Zones.
EDIT: talking specifically about your issue w/ PostgreSQL, check this Stack Exchange thread -- they had a long connection with auto commit set to false.
We had a long connection with auto commit set to false:
connection.setAutoCommit(false)
During that time we were doing a lot
of small queries and a few queries with a cursor:
statement.setFetchSize(SOME_FETCH_SIZE)
In JDBC you create a connection object, and from that connection you
create statements. When you execute the statments you get a result
set.
Now, every one of these objects needs to be closed, but if you close
statement, the entry set is closed, and if you close the connection
all the statements are closed and their result sets.
We were used to short living queries with connections of their own so
we never closed statements assuming the connection will handle the
things once it is closed.
The problem was now with this long transaction (~24 hours) which never
closed the connection. The statements were never closed. Apparently,
the statement object holds resources both on the server that runs the
code and on the PostgreSQL database.
My best guess to what resources are left in the DB is the things
related to the cursor. The statements that used the cursor were never
closed, so the result set they returned never closed as well. This
meant the database didn't free the relevant cursor resources in the
DB, and since it was over a huge table it took a lot of RAM.
Hope it helps!
TLDR: If you need PostgreSQL on AWS and you need rock solid stability, run PostgreSQL on EC2 (for now) and do some kernel tuning for overcommitting
I'll try to be concise, but you're not the only one who has seen this and it is a known (internal to Amazon) issue with RDS and Aurora PostgreSQL.
OOM Killer on RDS/Aurora
The OOM killer does run on RDS and Aurora instances because they are backed by linux VMs and OOM is an integral part of the kernel.
Root Cause
The root cause is that the default Linux kernel configuration assumes that you have virtual memory (swap file or partition), but EC2 instances (and the VMs that back RDS and Aurora) do not have virtual memory by default. There is a single partition and no swap file is defined. When linux thinks it has virtual memory, it uses a strategy called "overcommitting" which means that it allows processes to request and be granted a larger amount of memory than the amount of ram the system actually has. Two tunable parameters govern this behavior:
vm.overcommit_memory - governs whether the kernel allows overcommitting (0=yes=default)
vm.overcommit_ratio - what percent of system+swap the kernel can overcommit. If you have 8GB of ram and 8GB of swap, and your vm.overcommit_ratio = 75, the kernel will grant up to 12GB or memory to processes.
We set up an EC2 instance (where we could tune these parameters) and the following settings completely stopped PostgreSQL backends from getting killed:
vm.overcommit_memory = 2
vm.overcommit_ratio = 75
vm.overcommit_memory = 2 tells linux not to overcommit (work within the constraints of system memory) and vm.overcommit_ratio = 75 tells linux not to grant requests for more than 75% of memory (only allow user processes to get up to 75% of memory).
We have an open case with AWS and they have committed to coming up with a long-term fix (using kernel tuning params or cgroups, etc) but we don't have an ETA yet. If you are having this problem, I encourage you to open a case with AWS and reference case #5881116231 so they are aware that you are impacted by this issue, too.
In short, if you need stability in the near term, use PostgreSQL on EC2. If you must use RDS or Aurora PostgreSQL, you will need to oversize your instance (at additional cost to you) and hope for the best as oversizing doesn't guarantee you won't still have the problem.
i am working on my next project currently which works 100% on mongo,
my past projects worked on SQL + Mongo on which i used AWS RDS + AWS EC2 and could connect them both in AWS internal IP which result me with much faster connection.
Now in mongo there is alot of fancy cloud servers like MLab and MongoDB Atlas which is actually cheaper then AWS.
My concern is that moving back to external DB connection will be slower and more network consuming then the internal connection in RDS
Have anyone experienced in such issue? maybe the different isn't that big as i make it but i need it to be optimized
This depends on your setup. Many of the "fancy" services also host stuff on AWS, so latency is minimal. Some even offer "private environments" or such, so you can hide your databases from public view.
The only thing left to care about is the amount of network traffic. But this will be your problem regardless of your database host. You can test this relatively easily (e.g. get a trial from one of the providers and test for throughput, or raise your own MongoDB docker cluster to use as a test etc) just to get an idea of the performance range you'll be in.
I have some nightly jobs that are running on EC2 and the number of machines is scaled by the number of messages in SQS. My process requires reads from a Postgres RDS database. Now these are the issues I am facing.
Not able to scale beyond a certain number because of the unavailability of connections.
I tried creating a connection pool using pgbouncer, and tried with different settings as well, but it's missing a lot of data on the resultant set.
Make your postgresql RDS install multi AZ. Then you can make read replicas on demand and scale read performance with your load.
To answer the comments:
Some extra "plumbing" is required to make the connections to the read replica. Maybe route53 dynamically updated records as the scaling happens or something like haproxy
The reason I mention multi AZ is that this would help prevent downtime during an auto scaling event bringing up the read replica
It would be simpler (but more costly) to permanently bring up a read replica and use DNS round robin to share the load
See https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/amazon-rds-announcing-read-replicas/ for information on read replicas
Attempted to migrate my production environment from Native Postgres environment (hosted on AWS EC2) to RDS Postgres (9.4.4) but it failed miserably. The CPU utilisation of RDS Postgres instances shooted up drastically when compared to that of Native Postgres instances.
My environment details goes here
Master: db.m3.2xlarge instance
Slave1: db.m3.2xlarge instance
Slave2: db.m3.2xlarge instance
Slave3: db.m3.xlarge instance
Slave4: db.m3.xlarge instance
[Note: All the slaves were at Level 1 replication]
I had configured Master to receive only write request and this instance was all fine. The write count was 50 to 80 per second and they CPU utilisation was around 20 to 30%
But apart from this instance, all my slaves performed very bad. The Slaves were configured only to receive Read requests and I assume all writes that were happening was due to replication.
Provisioned IOPS on these boxes were 1000
And on an average there were 5 to 7 Read request hitting each slave and the CPU utilisation was 60%.
Where as in Native Postgres, we stay well with in 30% for this traffic.
Couldn't figure whats going wrong on RDS setup and AWS support is not able to provide good leads.
Did anyone face similar things with RDS Postgres?
There are lots of factors, that maximize the CPU utilization on PostgreSQL like:
Free disk space
CPU Usage
I/O usage etc.
I came across with the same issue few days ago. For me the reason was that some transactions was getting stuck and running since long time. Hence forth CPU utilization got inceased. I came to know about this, by running some postgreSql monitoring command:
SELECT max(now() - xact_start) FROM pg_stat_activity
WHERE state IN ('idle in transaction', 'active');
This command shows the time from which a transaction is running. This time should not be greater than one hour. So killing the transaction which was running from long time or that was stuck at any point, worked for me. I followed this post for monitoring and solving my issue. Post includes lots of useful commands to monitor this situation.
I would suggest increasing your work_mem value, as it might be too low, and doing normal query optimization research to see if you're using queries without proper indexes.