In our WSO2 setup, whenever the APIm comes up, it creates close to 50+ DB connections towards the PostGres DB. In stable phase, each APIm instance has only 4 DB connections. I would like to understand why it needs 50+ connections at startup? is it a bug or by design?
We run WSO2 in kubernetes setup, PostGres has a max connection limit set to 100, and two instances of APIm is not able to come-up due to this issue.
Within the WSO2 platform, the Tomcat JDBC pooling is used as the default pooling framework due to its production-ready stability and high performance. The goal of tuning the pool properties is to maintain a pool that is large enough to handle peak load without unnecessarily utilizing resources. These pooling configurations can be tuned for your production server in general in the <PRODUCT_HOME>/repository/conf/datasources/master-datasources.xml file. This is applicable if you are using an APIM version less than or equal to 2.6. If you are using APIM-3.X.X then these configurations can be found in <PRODUCT_HOME>/repository/conf/deployment.toml file.
The following parameters should be considered when tuning the connection pool:
The application's concurrency requirement.
The average time used for running a database query.
The maximum number of connections the database server can support.
The maxActive value is the maximum number of active connections that can be allocated from the connection pool at the same time. The default value is 100. The maximum latency (approximately) = (P / M) * T, where,
M = maxActive value
P = Peak concurrency value
T = Time (average) taken to process a query
Therefore, by increasing the maxActive value (up to the expected highest number of concurrency), the time that requests wait in the queue for a connection to be released will decrease. But before increasing the Max. Active value, consult the database administrator, as it will create up to maxActive connections from a single node during peak times, and it may not be possible for the DBMS to handle the accumulated count of these active connections.
Note that this value should not exceed the maximum number of requests allowed for your database.
For more details on this topic please refer to the official documents[1, 2].
[1] https://docs.wso2.com/display/ADMIN44x/Performance+Tuning#PerformanceTuning-JDBCpoolconfiguration
[2] http://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-7.0-doc/jdbc-pool.html
Related
I have connection pools setup for my system to handle concurrent connections for my managed database clusters in DigitalOcean.
Overall, each client I have, has their own DB, then I create a pool for that connection to avoid the error:
FATAL: remaining connection slots are reserved for non-replication superuser connections
Yesterday I ran into connection issues with a default database that my system also uses, I hadn't thought the connection pooling was needed for whatever dumb reason or another. No worries, I started getting flooded with error emails and then fixed the system to use the correct pooling mechanism.
This is where my question comes in, with the pooling on DigitalOcean they give you a specific "size" depending on your subscription, my subscription has an available "size" for the clusters of 97. As my clients grow I will be creating new pools and databases for them, so eventually I will run out of slots to assign a pool...what does this "size" dictate?
For example 1 client I have has an allotted size of 10 to their connection pool. Speaking to support:
The connection pool with a size of 1 will only allow 1 connection at a time. As for how you can estimate the number of simultaneous users, this is something you'll need to look over as your user and application grow. We don't have a way to give you that estimate from our back end.
So with that client that has a size of 10 alloted to their pool, they have 88 staff users that use the system simultaneously throughout the day, then they have about 4,000 users that they manage that can all sign in theoretically at once.
This is a lot more than 10 connections, and I get no errors on connection size at least that I've seen so far.
Given that I have a limited amount, how do I determine the appropriate size to use, does anybody have experience with this in production?
For example, with the connections listed above, is 10 too much, too little, just right?
Update 2/14/23
I have tested the capabilities bit because I was curious and can't get any semi-logical answer. When I use 1 connection pool for my 4,000 user client (although all users would not hit their DB/pool at the same time), I get connection errors (specifically when running background tasks from django-celery and Celery in the middle of the night).
Here are those errors, overall just connection already closed from here:
File "/usr/local/lib/python3.11/site-packages/django/db/backends/postgresql/base.py", line 269, in create_cursor cursor = self.connection.cursor()
This issue happened concurrently on 2 nights, but never during the day during normal user activity.
Once I upped the connection pool for said 4,000 user client to 2 instead of 1 the connection already closed error never occurred again.
I have a db and client app that does reads and writes, I need to handle a lot of concurrent reads but be sure that writes get priority, while also respecting my db’s connection limit.
Long version:
I have a single instance pgSQL database which allows 100 connections.
My .net microservice uses Npgsql to connect to the db. It has to do read queries that can take 20-2000ms and writes that can take about 500-2000ms. Right now there are 2 instances of the app, connecting with the same user credentials. I am trusting Npgsql to manage my connection pooling, and am preparing my read queries as there are basically just 2 or 3 variants with different parameter values.
As user requests increased, I started having problems with the database’s connection limit. Errors like ‘Too many connections’ from the db.
To deal with this I introduced a simple gate system in my repo class:
private static readonly SemaphoreSlim _writeGate = new(20, 20);
private static readonly SemaphoreSlim _readGate = new(25, 25);
public async Task<IEnumerable<SomeDataItem>> ReadData(string query, CancellationToken ct)
{
await _readGate.WaitAsync(ct);
// try to get data, finally release the gate
_readGate.Release();
}
public async Task WriteData(IEnumerable<SomeDataItem>, CancellationToken ct)
{
await _writeGate.WaitAsync(ct);
// try to write data, finally release the gate
_writeGate.Release();
}
I chose to have separate gates for read and write because I wanted to be confident that reads would not get completely blocked by concurrent writes.
The limits are hardcoded as above, a total of limit of 45 on each of the 2 app instances, connecting to 1 db server instance.
It is more important that attempts to write data do not fail than attempts to read. I have some further safety here with a Polly retry pattern.
This was alright for a while, but as the concurrent read requests increase, I see that the response times start to degrade, as a backlog of read requests begins to accumulate.
So, for this question, assume my sql queries and db schema are optimized to the max, what can I do to improve my throughput?
I know that there are times when my _readGate is maxed out, but there is free capacity in the _writeGate. However I don’t dare reduce the hardcoded limits because at other times I need to support concurrent writes. So I need some kind of QoS solution that can allow more concurrent reads when possible, but will give priority to writes when needed.
Queue management is pretty complicated to me but is also quite well known to many, so is there a good nuget package that can help me out? (I’m not even sure what to google)
Is there a simple change to my code to improve on what I have above?
Would it help to have different conn strings / users for reads vs writes?
Anything else I can do with npgsql / connection string that can improve things?
I think that postgresql recommends limiting connections to 100, there's a SO thread on this here: How to increase the max connections in postgres?
There's always a limit to how many simultaneous queries that you can run before the perf would stop improving and eventually drop off.
However I can see in my azure telemetry that my db server is not coming close to fully using cpu, ram or disk IO (cpu doesn't exceed 70% and is often less, memory the same, and IOPS under 30% of its capacity) so I believe there is more to be squeezed out somewhere :)
Maybe there are other places to investigate, but for the sake of this question I'd just like to focus on how to better manage connections.
First, if you're getting "Too many connections" on the PostgreSQL side, that means that the total number of physical connections being opened by Npgsql exceeds the max_connection setting in PG. You need to make sure that the aggregate total of Npgsql's Max Pool Size across all app instances doesn't exceed that, so if your max_connection is 100 and you have two Npgsql instances, each needs to run with Max Pool Size=50.
Second, you can indeed have different connection pools for reads vs. writes, by having different connection strings (a good trick for that is to set the Application Name to different values). However, you may want to set up one or more read replicas (primary/secondary setup); this would allow all read workload to be directed to the read replica(s), while keeping the primary for write operation only. This is a good load balancing technique, and Npgsql 6.0 has introduced great support for it (https://www.npgsql.org/doc/failover-and-load-balancing.html).
Apart from that, you can definitely experiment with increasing max_connection on the PG side - and accordingly Max Pool Size on the clients' side - and load-test what this do to resource utilization.
What does "max connections" mean in PostgreSQL?
Maybe I have max_connections = 500, and 1000 users come to my site then for the other 500 is the database not available? Or did I misunderstand this?
If you set max_connections to 500 then the database will accept at most 500 connections.
The typical approach to support a (much) higher number of online users is to use a connection pool inside your application - especially fo web applications. It's not unheard of that the ratio between the actual number of used (physical) database connections and the number of "online users" is in the area of 1:100 (so for 1000 users you would only need a connection pool that maintains 10 connections). Depending on the application and workload that ration might even be higher.
How exactly you enable a connection pool in your application depends on the technology you are using. Java web applications typically use that by default (through a JNDI datasource).
If your application (or technology) doesn't support a connection pool directly you need to use an external pooler like pgPool or pgBouncer.
I followed this tutorial and there is configuration connections per host.
What is this?
connectionsPerHost are the amount of physical connections a single Mongo client instance (it's singleton so you usually have one per application) can establish to a mongod/mongos process. At time of writing the java driver will establish this amount of connections eventually even if the actual query throughput is low (in order words you will see the "conn" statistic in mongostat rise until it hits this number per app server).
There is no need to set this higher than 100 in most cases but this setting is one of those "test it and see" things. Do note that you will have to make sure you set this low enough so that the total amount of connections to your server do not exceed
Found here How to configure MongoDB Java driver MongoOptions for production use?
I have been trying to configure PgPool to accept a requests of about 150. Postgres server is configured to accept only 100 connections. Anything beyond 100 need to be pooled by PgPool. I don't seem to get that. I only require PgPool to queue the requests, my current configuration does not do that. From my JMeter test, when I try to get connection beyond 100, postgres gives me an error saying PSQL error: sorry, too many clients.
I only have configured PGPool with the following parameters :
listen_address = 'localhost'
port = 9999
backend_hostname0 = 'localhost'
backend_port0 = 5432
num_init_children = 100
max_pool = 4
child_life_time =120
child_max_connections = 0
connections_life_tome = 120
client_idle_limit = 0
Since I only require PgPool to Queue the extra connections requests, is the above configuration correct?
Please advise on the proper configuration.
The 'child_max_connections' in pgpool is NOT the maximum allowed connections to the DB. It is the number of times a pooled connection can be used before it terminates and restarts. It is there to recycle connection threads and stop memory leaks.
The formula of max_pool x num_init_children describes the maximum number of connections that pgpool will make to Postgresql. Obviously, this needs to be less than the 'max_connections' set in postgresql, otherwise pgpool marks the DB as an unavailable backend. And if you have some DB connections reserved for admin use, you need to reduce the number of pgpool connections further.
So, what I am saying is that the 'max_connections' in the formula is the parameter set in postgresql.conf. Setting 'child_max_connections' to 100 in the comment above just means that the pgpool connection is closed and reopened every 100 times it is used.
The first thing is to figure out what you want as your maximum pool size. PostgreSQL performance (both in terms of throughput and latency) is usually best when the maximum number of active connections is somewhere around ((2 * number-of-cores) + effective-spindle-count). The effective spindle count can be tricky to figure -- if your active data set is fully cached, count it as zero, for example. Don't count any extra threads from hyperthreading as cores for this calculation. Also note that due to network latency issues, you may need a pool slightly larger than the calculated number to keep that number of connections active. You may need to do some benchmarks to find the sweet spot for your hardware and workload.
The setting you need to adjust is child_max_connections, with num_init_children kept less than or equal to that.