I have a real time data intensive application that uses a local in app/memory cache
40,000 vehicles are sending data to 1 server (every 5 secs), I have to work out distance travelled between previous and current location.
To do this I cache each vehicles previous lat,lon, then when I see a new bit of data, I take the new lat,lon and work out the distance travelled between the points (i.e. 5 foot) and then add this to the accumulating odometer on the vehicle (i.e. 60,000 miles)
I need to start load balancing this to handle scale,
Using a local cache would obviously be out of date when it hits the 2 different servers.
however, using a distributed cache seems like I would massively slow down processing due to the network hop to a shared cache, especially with the volumes and frequency as mentioned above.
One solution could be using a sticky session so car A always goes to server A and periodically update the in memory cache in case a server goes down.
However I'm sure this problem has been solved in the past,
Are there industry caching patterns to use in this scenario ?
I am wondering how this went for you. I would have started with the sticky session with an in memory cache option, given the nature of the load. It appears that one vehicle can be assigned to a single server, and a local cache can track the previous lat, lng. Only thing once a car stops sending data, you need to be able to recognize that and release the server for the next car. Anyway curious to know how did it worked out. Interesting problem.
Related
Lets take an example of Twitter. There is a huge cache which gets updated frequently. For example: if person Foo tweets and it has followers all across the globe. Ideally all the caches across all PoP needs to get updated. i.e. they should remain in sync
How does replication across datacenter (PoP) work for realtime caches ?
What tools/technologies are preferred ?
What are potential issues here in this system design ?
I am not sure there is a right/wrong answer to this, but here's my two pennies' worth of it.
I would tackle the problem from a slightly different angle: when a user posts something, that something goes in a distributed storage (not necessarily a cache) that is already redundant across multiple geographies. I would also presume that, in the interest of performance, these nodes are eventually consistent.
Now the caching. I would not design a system that takes care of synchronising all the caches each time someone does something. I would rather implement caching at the service level. Imagine a small service residing in a geographically distributed cluster. Each time a user tries to fetch data, the service checks its local cache - if it is a miss, it reads the tweets from the storage and puts a portion of them in a cache (subject to eviction policies). All subsequent accesses, if any, would be cached at a local level.
In terms of design precautions:
Carefully consider the DC / AZ topology in order to ensure sufficient bandwidth and low latency
Cache at the local level in order to avoid useless network trips
Cache updates don't happen from the centre to the periphery; cache is created when a cache miss happens
I am stating the obvious here, implement the right eviction policies in order to keep only the right objects in cache
The only message that should go from the centre to the periphery is a cache flush broadcast (tell all the nodes to get rid of their cache)
I am certainly missing many other things here, but hopefully this is good food for thought.
I hope someone experienced with Apache Ignite can help guide my team towards the answer regarding a new setup with Apache Ignite.
Overall Setup
Data is continuously generated from many distributed sensors and streamed into our database. Each sensor may deliver many updates every second, but generally generates <10 updates/sec.
Daily the magnitude of the data is approx. 50 million records, per site.
Data Description
Each record consists of the following values
Sensor ID
Point ID
Timestamp
Proximity
where 1, is our ID of the sensor, 2 is an ID of some point on the site, and 3 is a proximity measurement from the sensor to the point.
Each second there is approx. 1000 such new records. A record is never updated.
Query Workload
Queries are fairly complex with significant (and dynamic) look-back in time. A query may require data from several sensors in one site, but the required sensors are determined dynamically. Most continuous queries only require data from the last few hours, but frequently it is necessary to query over many days.
Generally, we therefore have a write-once query-many scenario.
Initial Strategy
If we load data into primitive integer arrays in, e.g., java, the space consumption for a week approaches 5 GB. Because that is "peanuts" in the platforms of today, we intend to load all data onto all nodes in the Ignite cluster/distributed cache. In other words, use a replicated cache.
However, the continuous updates keep puzzling me. If I update the entire cache, I image quite substantial amounts of data needs to be transferred across the network every second.
Creating chunks for, say, each minute/hour is not necessarily going to work (well) either as each sensor can be temporarily offline, which will make it deliver stale data at some later point in time.
My question is therefore how to efficiently handle this stream of updates, while maintaining a consistent view of the data for the last 7-10 days.
My current, local, implementation is chunking the data into 1-hour chunks. When a new record for a given chunk arrives, the chunk is replaced with an updated chunk. This works well on a single machine but is likely too expensive in terms of network overhead in a cluster. I do not have an Ignite implementation, yet, so I have not been able to test this.
Ideally, each node in the ignite cluster would maintain its own copy of all data within the last X days, and apply the small update workload continuously.
So my question is, how would fellow Igniters approach this problem?
It sounds like you want to scale the load across multiple servers, but it's not possible with replicated caches, because each update will always update all nodes, and more nodes you have the more network traffic you will get. I think you should use partitioned caches instead and try adding nodes until the system is capable of handling the load.
As I understand, the benefit of using memcached is to shorten the access time to the information stored in the database by caching it in the memory. But isn't the time overhead for the client-server model based on network protocol (e.g. TCP) also considerable as well? My guess is that it actually might be worse as network access is generally slower than hardware access. What am I getting wrong?
Thank you!
It's true that caching won't address network transport time. However, what matters to the user is the overall time from request to delivery. If this total time is perceptible, then your site does not seem responsive. Appropriate use of caching can improve responsiveness, even if your overall transport time is out of your control.
Also, caching can be used to reduce overall server load, which will essentially buy you more cycles. Consider the case of a query whose response is the same for all users - for example, imagine that you display some information about site activity or status every time a page is loaded, and this information does not depend on the identity of the user loading the page. Let's imagine also that this information does not change very rapidly. In this case, you might decide to recalculate the information every minute, or every five minutes, or every N page loads, or something of that nature, and always serve the cached version. In this case, you're getting two benefits. First, you've cut out a lot of repeated computation of values that you've decided don't really need to be recalculated, which takes some load off your servers. Second, you've ensured that users are always getting served from the cache rather than from computation, which might speed things up for them if the computation is expensive.
Both of those could - in the right circumstances - lead to improved performance from the user's perspective. But of course, as with any optimization, you need to have benchmarks and actually benchmark to data rather than to your perceptions of what ought to be correct.
I'm writing a visit counter for products on a website which uses MongoDB as its' DB-Engine.
Here it says that Mongo keeps frequently accessed stuff in memory and has an integrated in-memory caching engine.
So can I just relay on this integrated caching system and dumbly set the counters up on every visit or does one still need another caching layer on a high-traffic environment?
They're two seperate things. MongoDB uses a simple paged memory management system that, by design, keeps the most accessed parts of the memory mapped disk space in memory.
As a result, this will help you most for counters that are requested frequently but do not change often. Unfortunately for website counters these two things are mutually exclusive. Because increasing counters will generally not cause MongoDB to move the document holding the counter on disk the read caching will still be fairly effective.
The main issue is your writes, basically doing an increase per visit is not going to be very cost effective. I suggest a strategy where your counter webapp caches incoming visits and only pushes counter updates every X visits or every Y seconds, whichever comes first. Your main goal here is to reduce writes per second so you definitely do not want a db write per counter visit.
Although I have never worked on the kind of system you describe, I would do the following (assuming that I have read your question correctly and that you do indeed simply want to increment the counter for each visit).
Use the $inc operator to atomically perform the incrementation, or use upserts with modifiers to create the document structure if it is not already there
Use an appropriate Write Concern to speed up updates if that is safe to do so (ie with a Write Concern of NONE your call to update will return immediately and you'll just have to trust Mongo to persist it to disk). Of course whether this is safe or not depends on the use case. If you are counting millions of hits then 1 failed hit may not be a problem.
If the scale of data you are storing is truly enormous, look into using sharding to partition writes
I recently completed development of a mid-traficked(?) website (peak 60k hits/hour), however, the site only needs to be updated once a minute - and achieving the required performance can be summed up by a single word: "caching".
For a site like SO where the data feeding the site changes all the time, I would imagine a different approach is required.
Page cache times presumably need to be short or non-existent, and updates need to be propogated across all the webservers very rapidly to keep all users up to date.
My guess is that you'd need a distributed cache to control the serving of data and pages that is updated on the order of a few seconds, with perhaps a distributed cache above the database to mediate writes?
Can those more experienced that I outline some of the key architectural/design principles they employ to ensure highly interactive websites like SO are performant?
The vast majority of sites have many more reads than writes. It's not uncommon to have thousands or even millions of reads to every write.
Therefore, any scaling solution depends on separating the scaling of the reads from the scaling of the writes. Typically scaling reads is really cheap and easy, scaling the writes is complicated and costly.
The most straightforward way to scale reads is to cache entire pages at a time and expire them after a certain number of seconds. If you look at the popular web-site, Slashdot. you can see that this is the way they scale their site. Unfortunately, this caching strategy can result in counter-intuitive behaviour for the end user.
I'm assuming from your question that you don't want this primitive sort of caching. Like you mention, you'll need to update the cache in place.
This is not as scary as it sounds. The key thing to realise is that from the server's point of view. Stackoverflow does not update all the time. It updates fairly rarely. Maybe once or twice per second. To a computer a second is nearly an eternity.
Moreover, updates tend to occur to items in the cache that do not depend on each other. Consider Stack Overflow as example. I imagine that each question page is cached separately. Most questions probably have an update per minute on average for the first fifteen minutes and then probably once an hour after that.
Thus, in most applications you barely need to scale your writes. They're so few and far between that you can have one server doing the writes; Updating the cache in place is actually a perfectly viable solution. Unless you have extremely high traffic, you're going to get very few concurrent updates to the same cached item at the same time.
So how do you set this up? My preferred solution is to cache each page individually to disk and then have many web-heads delivering these static pages from some mutually accessible space.
When a write needs to be done it is done from exactly one server and this updates that particular cached html page. Each server owns it's own subset of the cache so there isn't a single point of failure. The update process is carefully crafted so that a transaction ensures that no two requests are not writing to the file at exactly the same time.
I've found this design has met all the scaling requirements we have so far required. But it will depend on the nature of the site and the nature of the load as to whether this is the right thing to do for your project.
You might be interested in this article which describes how wikimedia's servers are structured. Very enlightening!
The article links to this pdf - be sure not to miss it.