Is Galera trx_commit=2 and sync_binlog=0 evil?

It has been almost 5 years since I posted on my personal MySQL related blog. In the past few years I have worked for Severalnines and blogging both on their corporate blog and here would be confusing. After that I forgot and neglected this blog a bit, but it’s time to revive this blog!

Speaking at Percona Live Europe – Amsterdam 2019

Why? I will be presenting at Percona Live Europe soon and this blog and upcoming content is the more in-depth part of some background stories in my talk on benchmarking: Benchmarking should never be optional. The talk will mainly cover why you should always benchmark your servers, clusters and entire systems.

See me speak at Percona Live Europe 2019

If you wish to see me present, you can receive 20% discount using this code: CMESPEAK-ART. Now let’s move on to the real content of this post!

Innodb_flush_log_at_trx_commit=2 and sync_binlog=0

At one of my previous employers we ran a Galera cluster of 3 nodes to store all shopping carts of their webshop. Any cart operation (adding a product to the basket, removing a product from the basket or increasing/decreasing the number of items) would end up as a database transaction. With such important information stored in this database, in a traditional MySQL asynchronous replication setup it would be essential to ensure all transactions are retained at all times. To be fully ACID compliant the master would have both innodb_flush_log_at_trx_commit set to 2 and sync_binlog set to 0 to ensure every transaction is written to the logs and flushed to disk. When every transaction has to wait for data to be written to the logs and flushed to disk, this will limit the number of cart operations you can do.

Somewhere in a dark past the company passed the number of cart operations possible on this host and one of the engineers found a Stackoverflow post instructing how to improve the performance of MySQL by “tuning” the combo of the two variables. Naturally this solved the immediate capacity problem, but sacrificed in consistency at the same time. As Jean-François Gagné pointed out in a blog post, you can lose transactions in MySQL when you suffer from OS crashes. This was inevitable to happen some day and when that day arrived a new solution had come available: Galera!

Galera and being crash-unsafe

Galera offers semi-synchronous replication to ensure your transaction has been committed on the other nodes in the cluster. You just spread your cluster over your entire infrastructure on multiple hosts in multiple racks. When a node crashes it will recover when rejoining and Galera will fix itself, right?

Why would you care about crash-unsafe situations?

The answer is a bit more complicated than a yes or a no. When an OS crash happens (or a kill -9), InnoDB can be more advanced than the data written to the binary logs. But Galera doesn’t use binary logs by default, right? No it doesn’t, but it uses GCache instead: this file stores all transactions committed (in the ring buffer) so it acts similar to the binary logs and acts similar to these two variables. Also if you have asynchronous slaves attached to Galera nodes, it will write to both the GCache and the binary logs simultaneously. In other words: you could create a transaction gap with a crash-unsafe Galera node.

However Galera will keep state of the last UUID and sequence number in the grastate.dat file in the MySQL root folder. Now when an OS crash happens, Galera will read the grastate.dat file on startup and on an unclean shutdown it encounters seqno: -1. While  Galera is running the file contains the seqno: -1 and only upon normal shutdown the grastate.dat is written. So when it finds seqno: -1, Galera will assume an unclean shutdown happened and if the node is joining an existing cluster (becoming part of the primary component) it will force a State Snapshot Transfer (SST) from a donor. This wipes all data on the broken node, copies all data and makes sure the joining node has the same dataset.

Apart from the fact that unclean shutdown always triggers a SST (bad if your dataset is large, but more on that in a future post), Galera is pretty much recovering itself and not so much affected by being crash-unsafe. So what’s the problem?

It’s not a problem until all nodes crash at the same time.

Full Galera cluster crash

Suppose all nodes crash at the same time, none of the nodes would have been shut down properly and all nodes would have seqno: -1 in the grastate.dat. In this case a full cluster recovery has to be performed where MySQL has to be started with the –wsrep-recover option. This will open the innodb header files, shutdown immediately and return the last known state for that particular node.

$ mysqld --wsrep-recover
...
2019-09-09 13:22:27 36311 [Note] InnoDB: Database was not shutdown normally!
2019-09-09 13:22:27 36311 [Note] InnoDB: Starting crash recovery.
...
2019-09-09 13:22:28 36311 [Note] WSREP: Recovered position: 8bcf4a34-aedb-14e5-bcc3-d3e36277729f:114428
...

Now we have three independent Galera nodes that each suffered from an unclean shutdown. This means all three have lost transactions up to one second before crashing. Even though all transactions committed within the cluster are theoretically the same as the cluster crashed at the same moment in time, this doesn’t mean all three nodes have the same number of transactions flushed to disk. Most probably all three nodes have a different last UUID and sequence number and even within this there could be gaps as transactions are executed in parallel. Are we back at eeny-meeny-miny-moe and just pick one of these nodes?

Can we consider Galera with trx_commit=2 and sync_binlog=0 to be evil?

Yes and no… Yes because we have potentially lost a few transactions so yes it’s bad for consistency. No because the entire cart functionality became unavailable and carts have been abandoned in all sorts of states. As the entire cluster crashed, customers couldn’t perform any actions on the carts anyway and had to wait until service had been restored. Even if a customer just finished a payment, in this particular case the next step in the cart could not have been saved due to the unavailability of the database. This means carts have been abandoned and some may actually have been paid for. Even without the lost transactions we would need to recover these carts and payments manually.

So to be honest: I think it doesn’t matter that much if you handle cases like this properly. Now if you would design your application right you would catch the (database) error after returning from the payment screen and create a ticket for customer support to pick this up. Even better would be to trigger a circuit breaker and ensure your customers can’t re-use their carts after the database has been recovered. Another approach would be to scavenge data from various sources and double check the integrity of your system.

The background story

Now why is this background to my talk because this doesn’t have anything to do with benchmarking? The actual story in my presentation is about a particular problem around hyperconverging an (existing) infrastructure. A hyperconverged infrastructure will sync every write to disk to at least one other hypervisor in the infrastructure (via network) to ensure that if the hypervisor dies, you can quickly spin up a new node on a different hypervisor. As we have learned from above: the data on a crashed Galera node is unrecoverable and will be deleted during the joining process (SST). This means it’s useless to sync Galera data to another hypervisor in a hyperconverged infrastructure. And guess what the risk is if you hyper-converge your entire infrastructure into a single rack? 😆

I’ll write more about the issues with Galera on a hyperconverged infrastructure in the next post!

Advertisements

Duplicate entries while deleting records?

No duplicate content
This weekend I got a call from the support engineer on duty that night. He noticed in one of our clusters all slave machines were failing replication but he could not figure out why.

At first I thought it would be an easy problem of the master and slaves being out of sync and the row-based replication failing on not finding the row, but then I noticed all machines were actually still running statement-based replication. As far as I could recall we did that to circumvent another issue that has already been solved months ago but for some reason we never put it back to row-based replication.

A simple SHOW SLAVE STATUS revealed something similar to this:

Last_Errno: 1062
Last_Error: Error 'Duplicate entry '272369' for key 'PRIMARY'' on query. Default database: 'userdata'. Query: 'DELETE u, uf1, uf2, up FROM `users` u LEFT JOIN `friends` uf1 ON u.id = uf1.id LEFT JOIN `friends` uf2 ON u.id = uf2.friend_id LEFT JOIN `prefs` up ON u.id = up.id WHERE u.name = 'testuser';

Continue reading “Duplicate entries while deleting records?”