waku-org · Ivansete-status · Jan 3, 2024 · Dec 22, 2023
diff --git a/docs/benchmarks/imgs/digram_multiple_nodes_one_database.png b/docs/benchmarks/imgs/digram_multiple_nodes_one_database.png
diff --git a/docs/benchmarks/imgs/insert-time-dist-2.png b/docs/benchmarks/imgs/insert-time-dist-2.png
diff --git a/docs/benchmarks/imgs/insert-time-dist-3.png b/docs/benchmarks/imgs/insert-time-dist-3.png
diff --git a/docs/benchmarks/imgs/insert-time-dist-4.png b/docs/benchmarks/imgs/insert-time-dist-4.png
diff --git a/docs/benchmarks/imgs/insert-time-dist-5.png b/docs/benchmarks/imgs/insert-time-dist-5.png
diff --git a/docs/benchmarks/imgs/insert-time-dist-6.png b/docs/benchmarks/imgs/insert-time-dist-6.png
diff --git a/docs/benchmarks/imgs/insert-time-dist-postgres-2.png b/docs/benchmarks/imgs/insert-time-dist-postgres-2.png
diff --git a/docs/benchmarks/imgs/insert-time-dist-postgres-3.png b/docs/benchmarks/imgs/insert-time-dist-postgres-3.png
diff --git a/docs/benchmarks/imgs/insert-time-dist-postgres.png b/docs/benchmarks/imgs/insert-time-dist-postgres.png
diff --git a/docs/benchmarks/imgs/insert-time-dist.png b/docs/benchmarks/imgs/insert-time-dist.png
diff --git a/docs/benchmarks/imgs/jmeter-results.png b/docs/benchmarks/imgs/jmeter-results.png
diff --git a/docs/benchmarks/imgs/num-queries-per-minute.png b/docs/benchmarks/imgs/num-queries-per-minute.png
diff --git a/docs/benchmarks/imgs/query-time-dist-2.png b/docs/benchmarks/imgs/query-time-dist-2.png
diff --git a/docs/benchmarks/imgs/query-time-dist-3.png b/docs/benchmarks/imgs/query-time-dist-3.png
diff --git a/docs/benchmarks/imgs/query-time-dist-4.png b/docs/benchmarks/imgs/query-time-dist-4.png
diff --git a/docs/benchmarks/imgs/query-time-dist-5.png b/docs/benchmarks/imgs/query-time-dist-5.png
diff --git a/docs/benchmarks/imgs/query-time-dist-6.png b/docs/benchmarks/imgs/query-time-dist-6.png
diff --git a/docs/benchmarks/imgs/query-time-dist-postgres-2.png b/docs/benchmarks/imgs/query-time-dist-postgres-2.png
diff --git a/docs/benchmarks/imgs/query-time-dist-postgres-3.png b/docs/benchmarks/imgs/query-time-dist-postgres-3.png
diff --git a/docs/benchmarks/imgs/query-time-dist-postgres.png b/docs/benchmarks/imgs/query-time-dist-postgres.png
diff --git a/docs/benchmarks/imgs/query-time-dist.png b/docs/benchmarks/imgs/query-time-dist.png
diff --git a/docs/benchmarks/imgs/topology-only-store-protocol.png b/docs/benchmarks/imgs/topology-only-store-protocol.png
diff --git a/docs/benchmarks/imgs/using-jmeter.png b/docs/benchmarks/imgs/using-jmeter.png
diff --git a/docs/benchmarks/postgres-adoption.md b/docs/benchmarks/postgres-adoption.md
@@ -0,0 +1,234 @@
+# Epic
+
+The *Nim Waku Node*, *nwaku*, has the capability of archiving messages until a certain limit (e.g. 30 days) so that other nodes can synchronize their message history throughout the *Store* protocol.
+
+The *nwaku* originally used *SQLite* to archive messages but this has an impact on the node. *Nwaku* is single-threaded and therefore, any *SQLite* operation impacts the performance of other protocols, like *Relay.*
+
+Therefore, the *Postgres* adoption is needed to enhance that.
+
+[https://github.com/waku-org/nwaku/issues/1888](https://github.com/waku-org/nwaku/issues/1888)
+
+# How to connect the *nwaku* to *Postgres*
+
+Simply pass the next parameter to *nwaku*
+
+```bash
+--store-message-db-url="postgres://${POSTGRES_USER}:${POSTGRES_PASSWORD}@${POSTGRES_HOST}:${POSTGRES_PORT}/postgres
+```
+
+Notice that this only makes sense if the _nwaku_ has the _Store_ protocol mounted
+```bash
+--store=true
+```
+
+(start the _nwaku_ node with `--help` parameter for more _Store_ options)
+
+# Examples of *nwaku* using *Postgres*
+
+[https://github.com/waku-org/nwaku-compose](https://github.com/waku-org/nwaku-compose)
+
+[https://github.com/waku-org/test-waku-query](https://github.com/waku-org/test-waku-query)
+
+# Stress tests
+
+The following repository was created as a tool to stress and compare performance between *nwaku*+*Postgres* and *nwaku*+*SQLite*:
+
+[https://github.com/waku-org/test-waku-query](https://github.com/waku-org/test-waku-query)
+
+## Insert test results
+
+### Maximum insert throughput
+
+**Scenario**
+
+- 1 node subscribed to pubsubtopic ‘x’ and the *Store* protocol mounted.
+- ‘n’ nodes connected to the “store” node, and publishing messages simultaneously to pubsubtopic ‘x’.
+- All nodes running locally in a *Dell Latitude 7640*.
+- Each published message is fixed, 1.4 KB: [publish_one_client.sh](https://github.com/waku-org/test-waku-query/blob/master/sh/publish_one_client.sh)
+- The next script is used to simulate multiple nodes publishing messages: [publish_multiple_clients.sh](https://github.com/waku-org/test-waku-query/blob/fe7061a21eb14395e723402face755c826077aec/sh/publish_multiple_clients.sh)
+
+**Sought goal**
+
+Find out the maximum number of concurrent inserts that both *SQLite* and *Postgres* could support, and check whether _Postgres_ behaves better than _SQLite_ or not.
+
+**Conclusion**
+
+Messages are lost after a certain threshold, and this message loss is due to limitations in the *Relay* protocol (GossipSub - libp2p.)
+
+For example, if we set 30 nodes publishing 300 messages simultaneously, then 8997 rows were stored and not the expected 9000, in both *SQLite* and *Postgres* databases.
+
+The reason why few messages were lost is because the message rate was higher than the *relay* protocol can support, and therefore a few messages were not stored. In this example, the test took 38.8’’, and therefore, the node was receiving 232 msgs/sec, which is much more than the normal rate a node will work with, which is ~10 msgs/sec (rate extracted from Grafana’s stats for the *status.prod* fleet.)
+
+As a conclusion, the bottleneck is within the *Relay* protocol itself and not the underlying databases. Or, in other words, both *SQLite* and *Postgres* can support the maximum insert rate a Waku node will operate within normal conditions.
+
+## Query test results (jmeter)
+
+In this case, we are comparing *Store* performance by means of Rest service.
+
+**Scenario**
+
+- node_a: one _nwaku_ node with *Store* and connected to *Postgres.*
+- node_b: one _nwaku_ node with *Store* and using *SQLite*.
+- Both *Postgres* and *SQLite* contain +1 million rows.
+- node_c: one _nwaku_ node with *REST* enabled and acting as a *Store client* for node_a.
+- node_d: one _nwaku_ node with *REST* enabled and acting as a *Store client* for node_b.
+- With _jmeter_, 10 users make *REST* *Store* requests concurrently to each of the “rest” nodes (node_c and node_d.)
+- All _nwaku_ nodes running statusteam/nim-waku:v0.19.0
+
+[This](https://github.com/waku-org/test-waku-query/blob/master/docker/jmeter/http_store_requests.jmx) is the _jmeter_ project used.
+
+![Using jmeter](imgs/using-jmeter.png)
+
+*Results*
+
+With this, the *node_b* brings a higher throughput than the *node_a* and that indicates that the node that uses SQLite performs better. The following shows the measures taken by _jmeter_ with regard to the REST requests.
+
+![jmeter results](imgs/jmeter-results.png)
+
+## Query test results (only Store protocol)
+
+In this test suite, only the Store protocol is being analyzed, i.e. without REST. For that, a go-waku node is used, which acts as *Store* client. On the other hand, we have another go-waku app that publishes random *Relay* messages periodically. Therefore, this can be considered a more realistic approach.
+
+The following diagram shows the topology used:
+
+![Topology](imgs/topology-only-store-protocol.png)
+
+For that, the next apps were used:
+
+1. [Waku-publisher.](https://github.com/alrevuelta/waku-publisher/tree/9fb206c14a17dd37d20a9120022e86475ce0503f) This app can publish Relay messages with different numbers of clients 
+2. [Waku-store-query-generator](https://github.com/Ivansete-status/waku-store-query-generator/tree/19e6455537b6d44199cf0c8558480af5c6788b0d). This app is based on the Waku-publisher but in this case, it can spawn concurrent go-waku Store clients.
+
+That topology is defined in [this](https://github.com/waku-org/test-waku-query/blob/7090cd125e739306357575730d0e54665c279670/docker/docker-compose-manual-binaries.yml) docker-compose file.
+
+Notice that the two `nwaku` nodes run the very same version, which is compiled locally.
+
+### Comparing archive SQLite & Postgres performance in [nwaku-b6dd6899](https://github.com/waku-org/nwaku/tree/b6dd6899030ee628813dfd60ad1ad024345e7b41)
+
+The next results were obtained by running the docker-compose-manual-binaries.yml from [test-waku-queryc078075](https://github.com/waku-org/test-waku-query/tree/c07807597faa781ae6c8c32eefdf48ecac03a7ba) in the sandbox machine (metal-01.he-eu-hel1.wakudev.misc.statusim.net.)
+
+**Scenario 1**
+
+**Store rate:** 1 user generating 1 store-req/sec.
+
+**Relay rate:** 1 user generating 10msg/sec, 10KB each.
+
+In this case, we can see that the SQLite performance is better regarding the store requests.
+
+![Insert time distribution](imgs/insert-time-dist.png)
+
+![Query time distribution](imgs/query-time-dist.png)
+
+The following graph shows how the *SQLite* node has blocking periods whereas the *Postgres* always gives a steady rate.
+
+![Num queries per minute](imgs/num-queries-per-minute.png)
+
+**Scenario 2**
+
+**Store rate:** 10 users generating 1 store-req/sec.
+
+**Relay rate:** 1 user generating 10msg/sec, 10KB each.
+
+In this case, is more evident that the *SQLite* performs better.
+
+![Insert time distribution](imgs/insert-time-dist-2.png)
+
+![Query time distribution](imgs/query-time-dist-2.png)
+
+**Scenario 3**
+
+**Store rate:** 25 users generating 1 store-req/sec.
+
+**Relay rate:** 1 user generating 10msg/sec, 10KB each.
+
+In this case, the performance is similar regarding the timings. The store rate is bigger in *SQLite* and *Postgres* keeps the same level as in scenario 2.
+
+![Insert time distribution](imgs/insert-time-dist-3.png)
+
+![Query time distribution](imgs/query-time-dist-3.png)
+
+### Comparing archive SQLite & Postgres performance in [nwaku-b452ed8](https://github.com/waku-org/nwaku/tree/b452ed865466a33b7f5b87fa937a8471b28e466e)
+
+This nwaku commit is after a few **Postgres** optimizations were applied.
+
+The next results were obtained by running the docker-compose-manual-binaries.yml from [test-waku-queryc078075](https://github.com/waku-org/test-waku-query/tree/c07807597faa781ae6c8c32eefdf48ecac03a7ba) in the sandbox machine (metal-01.he-eu-hel1.wakudev.misc.statusim.net.)
+
+**Scenario 1**
+
+**Store rate** 1 user generating 1 store-req/sec. Notice that the current Store query used generates pagination which provokes more subsequent queries than the 1 req/sec that would be expected without pagination.
+
+**Relay rate:** 1 user generating 10msg/sec, 10KB each.
+
+![Insert time distribution](imgs/insert-time-dist-4.png)
+
+![Query time distribution](imgs/query-time-dist-4.png)
+
+It cannot be appreciated but the average *****Store***** time was 11ms.
+
+**Scenario 2**
+
+**Store rate:** 10 users generating 1 store-req/sec. Notice that the current Store query used generates pagination which provokes more subsequent queries than the 10 req/sec that would be expected without pagination.
+
+**Relay rate:** 1 user generating 10msg/sec, 10KB each.
+
+![Insert time distribution](imgs/insert-time-dist-5.png)
+
+![Query time distribution](imgs/query-time-dist-5.png)
+
+**Scenario 3**
+
+**Store rate:** 25 users generating 1 store-req/sec. Notice that the current Store query used generates pagination which provokes more subsequent queries than the 25 req/sec that would be expected without pagination. 
+
+**Relay rate:** 1 user generating 10msg/sec, 10KB each.
+
+![Insert time distribution](imgs/insert-time-dist-6.png)
+
+![Query time distribution](imgs/query-time-dist-6.png)
+
+### Conclusions
+
+After comparing both systems, *SQLite* performs much better than *Postgres* However, a benefit of using *Postgres* is that it performs asynchronous operations, and therefore doesn’t consume CPU time that would be better invested in *Relay* for example.
+
+Remember that _nwaku_ is single-threaded and *chronos* performs orchestration among a bunch of async tasks, and therefore it is not a good practice to block the whole _nwaku_ process in a query, as happens with *SQLite*
+
+After applying a few *Postgres* enhancements, it can be noticed that the use of concurrent *Store* queries doesn’t go below the 250ms barrier. The reason for that is that most of the time is being consumed in [this point](https://github.com/waku-org/nwaku/blob/6da1aeec5370bb1c116509e770178cca2662b69c/waku/common/databases/db_postgres/dbconn.nim#L124). The `libpqisBusy()` function indicates that the connection is still busy even the queries finished.
+
+Notice that we usually have a rate below 1100 req/minute in _status.prod_ fleet (checked November 7, 2023.)
+
+-----------------------------
+
+## Multiple nodes & one single database
+
+This study aims to look for possible issues when having only one single database while several Waku nodes insert or retrieve data from it.
+The following diagram shows the scenery used for such analysis.
+
+![digram_multiple_nodes_one_database](imgs/digram_multiple_nodes_one_database.png)
+
+There are three nim-waku nodes that are connected to the same database and all of them are trying to write messages to the same _PostgreSQL_ instance. With that, it is very common to see errors like:
+```
+ERR 2023-11-27 13:18:07.575+00:00 failed to insert message                   topics="waku archive" tid=2921 file=archive.nim:111 err="error in runStmt: error in dbConnQueryPrepared calling waitQueryToFinish: error in query: ERROR:  duplicate key value violates unique constraint \"messageindex\"\nDETAIL:  Key (storedat, id, pubsubtopic)=(1701091087417938405, 479c95bbf74222417abf76c7f9c480a6790e454374dc4f59bbb15ca183ce1abd, /waku/2/default-waku/proto) already exists.\n
+```
+
+The `db-postgres-hammer` is aimed to stress the database from the `select` point of view. It performs `N` concurrent `select` queries with a certain rate.
+
+### Results
+
+The following results were obtained by using the sandbox machine (metal-01.he-eu-hel1.wakudev.misc) and running nim-waku nodes from https://github.com/waku-org/nwaku/tree/b452ed865466a33b7f5b87fa937a8471b28e466e and using the `test-waku-query` project from https://github.com/waku-org/test-waku-query/tree/fef29cea182cc744c7940abc6c96d38a68739356
+
+The following shows the results
+
+1. Two `nwaku-postgres-additional` inserting messages plus 50 `db-postgres-hammer` making 10 `selects` per second.
+
+![Insert time distribution Postgres](imgs/insert-time-dist-postgres.png)
+
+![Query time distribution Postgres](imgs/query-time-dist-postgres.png)
+
+2. Five `nwaku-postgres-additional` inserting messages plus 50 `db-postgres-hammer` making 10 `selects` per second.
+![Insert time distribution Postgres](imgs/insert-time-dist-postgres-2.png)
+![Query time distribution Postgres](imgs/query-time-dist-postgres-2.png)
+
+In this case, the insert time gets more spread because the insert operations are shared amongst five more nodes. The _Store_ query time remains the same on average.
+
+3. Five `nwaku-postgres-additional` inserting messages plus 100 `db-postgres-hammer` making 10 `selects` per second.
+This case is similar to 2. but stressing more the database.
+![Insert time distribution Postgres](imgs/insert-time-dist-postgres-3.png)
+![Query time distribution Postgres](imgs/query-time-dist-postgres-3.png)