>>>>> "MARK" == MARK CALLAGHAN <mdcallag@stripped> writes:
MARK> On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 7:23 AM, Michael Widenius <monty@stripped>
>>>>>>> "Vadim" == Vadim Tkachenko <vadim@stripped> writes:
Vadim> Thread-pool should be used very carefully.
Vadim> We tested it and InnoDB hangs in sysbench benchmarks when count of
Vadim> client connection > size of thread-pool.
>> Yes, this a problem when you have more locks than threads.
>> The innodb deadlock detector has to timeout the hanged items.
Vadim> The problem is transaction state. Some connections may do internals
Vadim> locks and after that could not enter to pool, because all slots are busy.
Vadim> I expect you will have the same problem with Maria when it can fully
Vadim> support transactions.
>> That is one of the main reasons I added --extra-port to MariaDB
>> This allows you to connect and check/kill things if you get a hang.
>> So things are not perfect now, but at least a little better.
MARK> I want a method in handler.h to timeout/wakeup threads blocked in a
MARK> handler method. Many engines have the notion of blocking on a lock for
MARK> a row/page (Innodb, Maria, maybe Falcon and PBXT). The scheduler
MARK> cannot do anything to get those threads back today. I run Innodb with
MARK> a 50 second lock wait timeout. That is a very long time to wait when
MARK> all threads get tied up. The scheduler may be able to do this with
MARK> THD::enter_cond for things blocked above a storage engine and that may
MARK> require killing the current statement for the thread to be waked.
That's not that hard to do (Alredy works for table locks, which can be
Do you have any ideas of how this wakeup should work?
Sending a 'kill' manuall would not be hard to do, but how to do this
automaticly in certain situation?
(Especially being able to define the situations is the hard part)
>> In the future we have to also look at creating more pool-threads when
>> all pool-threads gets locked by a handler.
MARK> I don't trust this unless the server is able to create one thread per
MARK> connection and when running a server with 10,000+ connections I don't
MARK> think that will be a wise thing to do. I think this approach will lead
MARK> to rare but spectacular failures for hung servers.
Having a more dynamic limit for the pool of thread doesn't sound like
a bad idea and relatively easy to do.
But I agree it doesn't solve all problems. Extra-port also helps, but
we need something more.