Eventbrite 的 MySQL 升級計畫

在 2021 年看到 EventbiteMySQL 升級計畫:「MySQL High Availability at Eventbrite」。

看起來是 2019 年年初的時候 MySQL 5.1 出問題,後續決定安排升級,在 2019 年年中把系統升級到 MySQL 5.7 (Percona Server 版本):

Our first major hurdle was to get current with our version of MySQL. In July, 2019 we completed the MySQL 5.1 to MySQL 5.7 (v5.7.19-17-log Percona Server to be precise) upgrade across all MySQL instances.

然後看起來是直接在 EC2 上跑,不過這邊提到的空間問題就不太確定了,是真的把 EBS 的空間上限用完嗎?比較常使用的 gp2gp3 上限都是 16TB,不確定是不是真的用到接近爆掉了:

Not only was support for MySQL 5.1 at End-of-Life (more than 5 years ago) but our MySQL 5.1 instances on EC2/AWS had limited storage and we were scheduled to run out of space at the end of July. Our backs were up against the wall and we had to deliver!

另外在升級到 5.7 的時候,順便把本來是 INT 的 primary key 都換成 BIGINT

As part of the cut-over to MySQL 5.7, we also took the opportunity to bake in a number of improvements. We converted all primary key columns from INT to BIGINT to prevent hitting MAX value.

然後系統因為舊版的 Django 沒辦法配合 MySQL 5.7,得升級到 Django 1.6 (要注意 Django 1 系列的最新版是 1.11,看起來光是升級到 1.6 勉強會動就升不上去了?):

In parallel with the MySQL 5.7 upgrade we also Upgraded Django to 1.6 due a behavioral change in MySQL 5.7 related to how transactions/commits were handled for SELECT statements. This behavior change was resulting in errors with older version of Python/Django running on MySQL 5.7

然後採用了 GitHub 家研發的 gh-ost 當作改變 schema 的工具:

In December 2019, the Eventbrite DBRE successfully implemented a table ALTER via gh-ost on one of our larger MySQL tables.

看起來主要的原因是有遇到 pt-online-schema-change 的限制 (在「GitHub 發展出來的 ALTER TABLE 方式」這邊有提到):

Eventbrite had traditionally used pt-online-schema-change (pt-osc) to ALTER MySQL tables in production. pt-osc uses MySQL triggers to move data from the original to the “duplicate” table which is a very expensive operation and can cause replication lag. Matter of fact, it had directly resulted in several outages in H1 of 2019 due to replication lag or breakage.

另外一個引入的技術是 Orchestrator,看起來是先跟 HAProxy 搭配,不過他們打算要再換到 ProxySQL

Next on the list was implementing improvements to MySQL high availability and automatic failover using Orchestrator. In February of 2020 we implemented a new HAProxy layer in front of all DB clusters and we released Orchestrator to production!

Orchestrator can successfully detect the primary failure and promote a new primary. The goal was to implement Orchestrator with HAProxy first and then eventually move to Orchestrator with ProxySQL.

然後最後題到了 Square 研發的 Shift,把 gh-ost 包裝起來變成有個 web UI 可以操作:

2021 還可以看到這類文章還蠻有趣的...

在 Amazon Aurora 利用 ProxySQL 的讀寫分離提昇效能

Percona 的「Leveraging ProxySQL with AWS Aurora to Improve Performance, Or How ProxySQL Out-performs Native Aurora Cluster Endpoints」這篇有夠長的,其實就是發現 AWSAmazon Aurora 只使用 Cluster Endpoint 無法壓榨出所有效能,只有當你讀寫分離拆開 Cluster endpoint 與 Reader endpoint 時才能提昇效能。主要是在推銷 ProxySQL 啦,其他的軟體應該也能達到類似的效果...

然後這張怪怪的,應該是 copy & paste 上去的關係?

因為事後再疊 ProxySQL 進去不會太困難,一般還是建議先直接用服務本身提供的 endpoint (少了一層要維護的設備),等到有遇到效能問題時再來看是卡在哪邊,如果是 R/W split 可以解決的,才用 ProxySQL 或是其他軟體來解...

MySQL 總算要拔掉 mysql_query_cache 了

半官方的 MySQL blog 上宣佈了拔掉 mysql_query_cache 的計畫:「MySQL 8.0: Retiring Support for the Query Cache」。

作者開頭引用了 ProxySQL 的人對 MySQL Query Cache 的說明:

Although MySQL Query Cache was meant to improve performance, it has serious scalability issues and it can easily become a severe bottleneck.

主要問題在於 MySQL Query Cache 在多 CPU 環境下很難 scale,很容易造成一堆 thread 在搶 lock。而且作者也同意 ProxySQL 的說法,將 cache 放到 client 的效能比較好:

We also agree with Rene’s conclusion, that caching provides the greatest benefit when it is moved closer to the client:

可以看到 Query Cache 在複雜的環境下對效能極傷。而之前也提到過類似的事情了:「Percona 對 mysql_query_cache 的測試 (以 Magento 為例)」、「關閉 MySQL 的 Query Cache」。

一般如果要 cache 的話,透過 InnoDB 裡良好的 index 應該還可以撐不少量起來。