I am working on upgrading an Oracle database from 22.214.171.124 to 19c and migrating it from HP Unix to Linux. This 15-terabyte database is too large to copy from the old to the new system during our normal weekend downtime window. It also has a ton of weekend batch updates that overlap the normal weekend change window so it would be best for our business processing if the cut over from the old to the new system was as fast as possible.
I want to use GoldenGate to minimize the downtime for the cutover using an approach similar to what is described in this Oracle document:
You start GoldenGate collecting changes on the current production system and then take your time copying the 15 TB of data from the old to new system. Once you are done with the initial load you apply the changes that happened in the meanwhile. Finally, you cut over to the new system. You could even switch the direction of the replication to push changes on the new production system back to the old system to allow for a mid-week back out several days after your upgrade. Pretty cool. A teammate of mine successfully used this approach on an important database some years back.
But the database that I am working on now, unlike the one that my colleague worked on, has a lot of tables set to nologging. Under the right conditions inserts into tables set to nologging are not written to the redo logs and will be missed by GoldenGate. This Oracle article recommends setting your database to FORCE LOGGING so GoldenGate will not miss any updates:
In order to ensure that the required redo information is contained in the Oracle redo logs for segments being replicated, it is important to override any NOLOGGING operations which would prevent the required redo information from being generated. If you are replicating the entire database, enable database force logging mode.Oracle GoldenGate Performance Best Practices
We could also switch all our application tables and partitions in the source system to logging but we have so many I think we would set the whole database to force logging.
But the big question which I touched on in my previous post is whether force logging will slow down our weekend batch processing so much that we miss our deadlines for weekend processing to complete and affect our business in a negative way. The more I investigate it the more convinced I am that force logging will have minimal impact on our weekend jobs. This is an unexpected and surprising result. I really thought that our batch processing relied heavily on nologging writes to get the performance they need. It makes me wonder why we are using nologging in the first place. It would be a lot better for backup and recovery to have all our inserts logged to the redo logs. Here is a nice Oracle Support document that lays out the pros and cons of using nologging:
The Gains and Pains of Nologging Operations (Doc ID 290161.1)
I have an entry in my notes for this upgrade project dated 8/26/19 in which I wrote “Surely force logging will bog the … DB down”. Now I think the opposite. So, what changed my mind? It started with the graph from the previous post:
I was really surprised that the purple line was so low compared to the other two. But I felt like I needed to dig deeper to make sure that I was not just misunderstanding these metrics. The last thing I want to do is make some production change that slows down our weekend processes that already struggle to meet their deadlines. I was not sure what other metrics to look at since I could not find something that directly measures non-logged writes. But then I got the idea of using ASH data.
In my “Fast way to copy data into a table” post I said that to copy data quickly between two Oracle tables “you want everything done nologging, in parallel, and using direct path”. I may have known then and forgotten but working on this now has me thinking about the relationship between these three ways of speeding up inserts into tables. I think there are the following two dependencies:
- Nologging requires direct path
- Parallel requires direct path
Oracle document “Check For Logging / Nologging On DB Object(s) (Doc ID 269274.1)” says the first one. In the second case if you have a target table set to parallel degree > 1 and you enable parallel DML you get direct path writes when you insert into the target table.
From all this I got the idea to look for direct path write waits in the ASH views. I could use ASH to identify insert statements that are using direct path. Then I could check that the target tables or partitions are set to nologging. Then I would know they are doing non-logged writes even if I did not have a metric that said so directly.
directwritesql.sql looked at all the SQL statements that had direct write waits over the entire 6 weeks of our AWR history. The output looks like this:
select 2 sql_id,count(*) active 3 from DBA_HIST_ACTIVE_SESS_HISTORY a 4 where 5 event = 'direct path write' 6 group by sql_id 7 order by active desc; SQL_ID ACTIVE ------------- ---------- 2pfzwmtj41guu 99 g11qm73a4w37k 88 6q4kuj30agxak 58 fjxzfp4yagm0w 53 bvtzn333rp97k 39 6as226jb93ggd 38 0nx4fsb5gcyzb 36 6gtnb9t0dfj4w 31 3gatgc878pqxh 31 cq433j04qgb18 25
These numbers startled me because they were so low. Each entry in DBA_HIST_ACTIVE_SESS_HISTORY represents 10 seconds of activity. So over 6 weeks our top direct path write waiter waited 990 seconds. Given that we have batch processes running full out for a couple of days every weekend 990 seconds over 6 weekends is nothing.
I took the top SQL ids and dumped out the SQL text to see what tables they were inserting into. Then I queried the LOGGING column of dba_tables and dba_tab_partitions to see which insert was going into a table or partition set to nologging.
select logging,table_name from dba_tables where owner='MYOWNER' and table_name in ( ... tables inserted into ... ) order by table_name; select logging,table_name,count(*) cnt from dba_tab_partitions where table_owner='MYOWNER' and table_name in ( ... tables inserted into ... ) group by logging,table_name order by table_name,cnt desc;
This simple check for LOGGING or NOLOGGING status eliminated several of the top direct path write waiters. This process reduced the list of SQL ids down to three top suspects:
SQL_ID ACTIVE ------------- ---------- cq433j04qgb18 25 71sr61v1rmmqc 17 0u0drxbt5qtqk 11
These are all inserts that are not logged. Notice that the most active one has 250 seconds of direct path write waits over the past 6 weeks. Surely enabling force logging could not cause more than about that much additional run time over the same length of time.
I got the idea of seeing what percentage of the total ASH time was direct path write waits for each of these SQL statements. In every case it was small:
cq433j04qgb18 TOTAL_SAMPLE_COUNT DW_SAMPLE_COUNT DW_SAMPLE_PCT ------------------ --------------- ------------- 2508 25 .996810207 71sr61v1rmmqc TOTAL_SAMPLE_COUNT DW_SAMPLE_COUNT DW_SAMPLE_PCT ------------------ --------------- ------------- 1817 17 .935608145 0u0drxbt5qtqk TOTAL_SAMPLE_COUNT DW_SAMPLE_COUNT DW_SAMPLE_PCT ------------------ --------------- ------------- 8691 11 .126567714
TOTAL_SAMPLE_COUNT was all the samples for that SQL_ID value for the past 6 weeks. DW_SAMPLE_COUNT is the same count of samples that are direct write waits that we already talked about. DW_SAMPLE_PCT is the percentage of the total samples that were direct write wait events. They were all around 1% or lower which means that write I/O time was only about 1% of the entire run time of these inserts. The rest was query processing best I can tell.
Also I used my sqlstat script to look at the average run time for these inserts:
These queries run at most a couple of hours. If direct path writes are 1% of their total run time, I estimated that force logging would add about 1% to the elapsed time or about 2 minutes per execution.
The final step was to try to run one of these top nologging I/O inserts in a test environment with and without force logging to see if the test matches the expected performance slowdown. I was not able to run 0u0drxbt5qtqk without setting up a more elaborate test with the development team. My test of cq433j04qgb18 ran considerably faster with force logging than without it so I think other factors were hiding whatever effect force logging had. But 71sr61v1rmmqc had some nice results that matched my estimates well. This is on a Delphix clone of production so the data was up to date with prod but the underlying I/O was slower.
The individual run times are in seconds and the averages are listed in seconds and in minutes. I ran the insert 5 times with no force logging and 5 times with it alternating. I dropped the primary key and unique index of the target table to keep from getting constraint errors. I rolled back the insert each time. It averaged about 1.2 minutes more out of 40 minutes of run time which is about a 3% increase. My estimate from ASH was about 1% so this test matches that well.
The final test remains. In some upcoming production weekend, I will put in a change to flip the database to force logging and see how it goes. My tests were run on a test system with a different storage system and with no other activity. We might see different results on a heavily loaded system with a queue for the CPU. But, after all this analysis and testing I feel confident that we won’t be able to tell that force logging is enabled. Unfortunately, we sometimes have performance issues anyway due to plan changes or data volume so the force logging switch might get blamed. But I feel confident enough to push for the final test and I think we ultimately will pass that test and be able to use force logging to enable GoldenGate to support a short cut over time for our migration and upgrade project.
P.S. A good question came in as a comment about direct path write waits and asynchronous I/O. The system I am testing on does not support async I/O because it is HP Unix and a filesystem. This older blog post talks a bit about async and direct I/O on HP-UX:
So, your mileage may vary (YMMV) if you do these same queries on a system with asynchronous writes. Linux filesystems support async writes and on HP-UX our RAC system on ASM supports it. It is one of the challenges of writing blog posts. Other people may be in different situations than I am.