Compute WAL size and use it during retention size checks

[dipack95]

Signed-off-by: Dipack P Panjabi dpanjabi@hudson-trading.com

Closes: #5771

Compute the size of the WAL and use it while calculating if exceeding the max retention size limit.

(Port of prometheus-junkyard/tsdb#651)

[krasi-georgiev]

unless someone has a better idea, this LGTM after the conflict resolut.

[dipack95]

@krasi-georgiev I've corrected the merge conflicts!

[krasi-georgiev]

LGTM

ping @bwplotka @codesome

[codesome]

Sorry I have not been following PRs lately.

I had only 1 comment in the old PR

I am wondering if it would error out if we are calculating size while files are being added or removed

[dipack95]

@codesome In your scenario, are you referring to when WAL chunks are added/removed? If so, I tested for that particular scenario, and it does not crash.

[codesome]

WAL chunks are added/removed

Not chunks, but when new files are being added/removed (mostly the case of removing files while we are already iterating the items in the directory).

[dipack95]

From what I can tell, the size computation logic is a blocking call, so no files are added/removed while it iterates over the contents of the wal/ dir.

[krasi-georgiev]

@codesome did you double check about this race?

[codesome]

I don't think I will be able to investigate that race right now.

[codesome]

Had a look now, the possibility of a race is very slim here and not critical. There wont be any issue with deletion of segments as it doesn't happen while the size is being computed (as size of WAL is checked inside reload() which doesn't happen in parallel with WAL truncation). And addition of WAL segment should not be a problem for filepath.Walk (I guess?).

the size computation logic is a blocking call, so no files are added/removed while it iterates over the contents of the wal/ dir.

Having gone through the souce of filepath.Walk, not sure if it is blocking to changes on the disk. But not a problem in this case now.

[dipack95]

Sorry, I haven't been following the conversation on this PR for a while now; is there a change required in the WAL truncation logic? I can see that @codesome has tested for the race condition during size computation, and found that that shouldn't be an issue.

[krasi-georgiev]

@dipack95 just need to add a test that involves checkpointing and it is ready for merging.

https://github.com/prometheus/prometheus/pull/5886/files#r327057583

[krasi-georgiev]

now that I see it can't we remove a lot of the code by just using (h *Head) Truncate ?

[dipack95]

I suppose so, considering this was in the WAL test file, I decided to just use the WAL functions directly instead of using Head, or its appenders.

[krasi-georgiev]

can you check if my suggestion would remove all that boilerplate than?

[krasi-georgiev]

ping @dipack95

[dipack95]

Hey sorry, I haven't had the time for the last week. I should have the time to update this, and #5887 in a few days.

[krasi-georgiev]

Thanks. Appreciated

[krasi-georgiev]

ping @dipack95

[dipack95]

@krasi-georgiev When I create a Head, and try to go about it that way, it runs into an import cycle. Looks like we might have to keep the test the way it is right now, ugly as it is!

[krasi-georgiev]

good point, thanks for trying.

Had another look and I would say that we want to add all this to the TestSizeRetention this way can ensure that the size retention works as expected and accounts for the size of the WAL.

[dipack95]

Do you mean duplicate the entire test to TestSizeRetention in db_test.go?

[krasi-georgiev]

don't think it needs to be duplicated just add some more logic to the existing TestSizeRetention
It needs to test that
the total db size blocks+wal is exp=act
retention accounts for the wal size so that if blocks+wal size is bigger than the retention is deletes a block
when the wal checkpoint is run the retention works as expected - and also the total db size after a checkpoint is exp=act

[dipack95]

@krasi-georgiev That makes sense, I've added the WAL size to the expected size as well.

However, I've noticed that over the course of that test, it directly writes blocks to the disk instead of using the Head (and consequently the WAL), and thus the WAL size is always zero. Thus the test never failed with the introduction of this PR.

[krasi-georgiev]

yep you will need to add some records to the wal as well. Look at some other tests for ideas.

[dipack95]

@krasi-georgiev Please take a look, I've updated the test.

[dipack95]

@krasi-georgiev Please take a look now.

[krasi-georgiev]

LGTM, Thanks

unless @codesome , @brian-brazil or anyone else has any other comments will merge this in few days.

[life0215]

Not sure if it's only me finding that the WAL size is still not used during retention size checks:

/prometheus $ prometheus --version
prometheus, version 2.17.1 (branch: HEAD, revision: ae041f97cfc6f43494bed65ec4ea4e3a0cf2ac69)
  build user:       root@806b02dfe114
  build date:       20200326-16:18:19
  go version:       go1.13.9
/prometheus $ 
/prometheus $ ps
PID   USER     TIME  COMMAND
    1 1000      8d02 /bin/prometheus --web.console.templates=/etc/prometheus/consoles --web.console.libraries=/etc/prometheus/console_libraries --storage.tsdb.retention.size=15GB --config.file=/etc/prometheus/config_out/prometheus.env.yaml --
   79 1000      0:00 sh
   87 1000      0:00 sh
   99 1000      0:00 ps
/prometheus $ du -h -d 1
79.5M   ./01EB7D47PPV49QCNY2MZVJCYTE.tmp
524.5M  ./01EBBR0J3VHNPNBYM6CZXM56T9.tmp
62.1M   ./01EJFJF03NFF5J29VE9JKEE2MS
512.5M  ./01EBBPV9FS1Z0QY4EK9QC7RMQA.tmp
1.2G    ./01EJ1DCVBP2C3XS5WVJE6H85AE
1.0G    ./01EHG166DB6JYRB79VEMWME7Z6
158.7M  ./01EJFJG3Y1CQ3PRRPDQH3NACNQ
512.5M  ./01EBAM8DHP0GAKCWWS6P3F7D0E.tmp
1.1G    ./01EHVM027KCG4CAT3VGZW6VMJ6
516.5M  ./01EBBQ7Q7CG0J99RHM57FE0TF0.tmp
57.5M   ./01EJFSAQGFA3PT9BW8JMDKN824
1.0G    ./01EGYN0SAP6C43V8RF335SNFFW
1.1G    ./01EHA7SGSXJ4CR88GQ4B936SNZ
79.5M   ./01EB7CYVEXJENABPGR037E14P8.tmp
453.4M  ./01EJEXYPAFCM86Y7T5REJXNJHA
8.0K    ./01EBCB2SVA5XVV84EC54GR2S0T.tmp
8.0K    ./01EBBS9M0417RNJVVTCYEK33RH.tmp
1.3G    ./01EJD06W4FTYPFAKYVM7FZNE01
1.1G    ./01EH4EE1ZHCXEWP80NJJJJFSW5
516.5M  ./01EBAM3540NXPQM49TSAPHSDBH.tmp
1.1G    ./01EHNTJTJ7CGDRPSB4H6TA7YE0
516.5M  ./01EBATZ99KJ4PX2FG44TW0SZAE.tmp
1.0G    ./01EGRVM1JBVNQWD1Y7N5FYN4GN
1.9G    ./wal
1.2G    ./01EJ76T4CNYNDX6EJ5KMWXPKMZ
16.8G   .

Please note that we've set --storage.tsdb.retention.size=15GB, but the actual storage usage is 16.8G

[codesome]

I dont think the *.tmp directories count towards the size calculation. If they are leftovers from any errors before, they can be deleted. Ideally we should have a cleanup of those temporary directories on startup if any exists.