[pgpool-general: 1387] Re: PgPool 3.2.2 doesn't appear to be load balancing

[David Kerr]

Yeah, that looks right, thanks!

On Feb 11, 2013, at 6:09 PM, Lonni J Friedman <netllama at gmail.com> wrote:

> I think pcp_attach_node is what you want?
> 
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 6:04 PM, David Kerr <web at mr-paradox.net> wrote:
>> which reminds me, is there a way to do that w/o restarting the server with -D?
>> 
>> On Feb 11, 2013, at 5:17 PM, web at mr-paradox.net wrote:
>> 
>>> Looks like I had to clear the node status, pgpool thought that my slave node was
>>> down.
>>> 
>>> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 03:13:29PM -0800, web at mr-paradox.net wrote:
>>> - pgpool-II version 3.2.2 (namameboshi), CentOS
>>> -
>>> - My configuration is currently like this
>>> - master_slave_mode = on             # (change requires restart)
>>> - master_slave_sub_mode = 'stream'   # (change requires restart)
>>> -
>>> - sr_check_period = 10
>>> - sr_check_user = 'nobody'
>>> - sr_check_password = 'n0b0dy'
>>> - delay_threshold = 10000000
>>> -
>>> - backend_hostname0 = master
>>> - backend_port0 = 5432
>>> - backend_weight0 = 0
>>> - backend_data_directory0 = '/db/pg'
>>> - backend_flag0 = 'ALLOW_TO_FAILOVER'
>>> -
>>> - backend_hostname1 = slave
>>> - backend_port1 = 5432
>>> - backend_weight1 = 1
>>> - backend_data_directory1 = '/db/pg'
>>> - backend_flag1 = 'ALLOW_TO_FAILOVER'
>>> -
>>> - All reads and writes are currently going to the master.
>>> -
>>> - load_balance_mode = on
>>> - ignore_leading_white_space = on
>>> - white_function_list = ''
>>> - black_function_list = 'currval,lastval,nextval,setval'
>>> -
>>> - I've read the FAQ:
>>> -
>>> - > It seems my pgpool-II does not do load balancing. Why?
>>> - > First of all, pgpool-II' load balancing is "session base", not "statement base". That means, DB node
>>> - > selection for load balancing is decided at the beginning of session. So all SQL statements are sent to the
>>> - > same DB node until the session ends.
>>> -
>>> - To mitigate this I have a low client_idle_limit, since rails will attempt to retain it's own pool.
>>> - I'd love an opinion on this.
>>> -
>>> - > Another point is, whether statement is in an explicit transaction or not. If the statement is in a
>>> - > transaction, it will not be load balanced in the replication mode. In pgpool-II 3.0 or later, SELECT will be
>>> - > load balanced even in a transaction if operated in the master/slave mode.
>>> -
>>> - I read this as: in version >3 that I should expect to see SELECTs load balanced in master/slave mode.
>>> -
>>> - > Note the method to choose DB node is not LRU or some such. Pgpool-II chooses DB node randomly considering
>>> - > the "weight" parameter in pgpool.conf. This means that the chosen DB node is not uniformly distributed among
>>> - > DB nodes in short term. You might want to inspect the effect of load balancing after ~100 queries have been
>>> - > sent.
>>> -
>>> - I set the weight for the master to 0 in hopes that basically all non-writes go to the slave.
>>> -
>>> -
>>> - Any help would be great, if i can debug, or log anything I'd be happy to do so. (nothing particularly
>>> - useful is in the current logs)
>>> -
>>> - Thanks
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> pgpool-general mailing list
>>> pgpool-general at pgpool.net
>>> http://www.pgpool.net/mailman/listinfo/pgpool-general
>>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> pgpool-general mailing list
>> pgpool-general at pgpool.net
>> http://www.pgpool.net/mailman/listinfo/pgpool-general
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> L. Friedman                                    netllama at gmail.com
> LlamaLand                       https://netllama.linux-sxs.org
>