I'm seeing an error with some Laravel code that uses an AWS RDS database. The code writes a record to the database and then immediately does a search to load that record using the primary key and gets no results.
If I try it manually afterwards I find the record. If I insert a 1-second sleep in the code it works correctly.
I've tried this using Laravel's separate settings for read and write hosts. I've also tried setting them to the same host and only using one host. The result is always the same. However other environments with the same configuration do not have the error.
Is there an option in RDS that needs to be changed to have the record available immediately after it's written.
The error is due to the mySQL master-slave replication lag.
A common mistake is to use a mySQL cluster and then perform a read
immediately after a write.
Since the read occurs on one of the slave/read hosts and the write occurs on the master, the data would not be replicated at the time of the read.
There are a couple of ways to rectify the error:
The read immediately after must be performed on the master (not the slave). Even though you've mentioned that you changed it to a single host, often people make a mistake while switching the connection. Refer this SO post to properly switch connections in Laravel
An easier way may be to use the sticky database option in Laravel. Beware: this may cause performance issues if not used carefully for only the use case you desire. From the docs:
The sticky option is an optional value that can be used to allow the
immediate reading of records that have been written to the database
during the current request cycle.
If the sticky option is enabled and a "write" operation has been
performed against the database during the current request cycle, any
further "read" operations will use the "write" connection.
The most "non-obvious" way is to NOT perform a read immediately after a write. Think about whether this can be avoided depending on your use case.
Other methods: refer this SO post
Related
I want to mark a standalone Redis server (not a Redis-Cluster, not a Redis-Sentinel) as read-only. I have been googling for this for quite sometime but I don't seem to find a definite answer (Almost all answers point to Clustering or Sentinel). I was looking out for some config modification (CONFIG SET something).
NOTE: config set replica-read-only yes does not make the current redis-server read-only, but only its replicas.
My use-case basically is I am doing a migration wherein at some point I want to make the redis-server read-only. My application code can handle failures whenever a write call happens so that's not an issue.
Also, if this is not directly possible from redis server, is there something that I can do in the client code that'll have the same effect (I am using redis-py as the client library)? (Although this is less than ideal)
Things that I've tried
Played around with config set replica-read-only yes and other configs. They don't seem to be applying the current redis-server.
Tried marking a redis-server as a replica of itself (This was illogical, but just wanted to see if this worked), but turns out it deleted all keys in my local redis, so not something I can do.
Once the writes are done and you want to switch the node to read-only, couple of ways to do that:
Modify the redis.conf to have "min-replicas-to-write 3". Since you don't have 3 replicas your node will stop accepting writes but will continue to serve reads, as shown below:
However, please note that after modifying redis.conf, you will have to restart your redis node for the changes to take effect.
Another way is when you want to switch to readonly mode, at that time you create a replica and let it sync with the master and then kill the master node. Then replica will exist as read only.
There're several solution you can try:
You can use the rename-command config to disable write commands. If you only want to disable small number of commands, that's a good solution. However, since there're too many write commands, you might need to have too many configuration, and easy to miss some of them.
If you're using Redis 6.0, you can use Redis ACL to disable write commands for specific users.
You can setup a read-only Redis replica for your master, and ask clients to read from the replica.
I want to use dynamic databases on runtime without effecting config/database.php because of concurrent users.
I have a main db with a table that contains reference to several other dbs. Now at runtime I need to not only connect to those dbs but also may want to run migrations on them.
I am aware that this is possible by having a second connection entry in config.database.connections but I have a feeling that if two users hit the server at the same time, the physical config file changes may create a conflict.
I also read (and also experimented) that you can edit the second connection using below code at runtime:
\Config::set('database.connections.mysql2.database', 'somedynamicdb');
DB::purge('mysql2');
But I fear that if it persists changes for different users, then it may conflict for concurrent users. And if it does not persist changes, then it wont work for migrations.
I want to understand/know two things specifically:
What is the scope of this above code (i.e. Config::set() call)? Does it persist over different user calls to the server?
If I call migrations using Artisan::call('migrate') with a --database=connectionname clause, right after I change the db name in connectionname, will that use the dynamically set database or the physical config value?
UPDATE
Also worth noting that a call to Artisan::call('migrate') with a --database=connectionname, will make the new connection persist for the rest of your app call.
See here for details:
https://github.com/laravel/framework/issues/28253
Config::set will only apply for the request for which it was set, won't apply to any other requests, and will not persist beyond the request. If you're not processing a request (e.g. a CLI command) then it won't affect anything beyond the current PHP process.
As for Item #2, if you're invoking from the command line, you can just do DB_CONNECTION=connectionname php artisan migrate. If you need to invoke the artisan command from code, using Config::set is still the right way to go.
We use connection created on the fly here all time and works very well. We setup this on Middleware that we included after authentication and is only valid on the user current user request based on login information.
I'm looking into ways of replicating databases from On-Premise environments to Azure and one of the options I found was setting up a Read-Scale availability group.
The reason I'm using a Read-Scale and not an Always On availability group, is because I don't won't to use SQL Server Enterprise edition due to the cost.
I followed a tutorial from Microsoft (MS TUTORIAL) to set this all up and in the end, I think I got it working as my database appeared on the Azure environment.
However, the problem is that my replica always stays in the Synchronizing state - which is probably due to the fact I chose Asynchronous Replication by using the AVAILABILITY_MODE = ASYNCHRONOUS_COMMIT command - but even worse is that I can't access the database itself.
Each time I try to fire a query against it, it comes back with an Object is not accessible exception.
After some reading, I found that the cause of this might be because my replica doesn't have a secondary role. Trying to set this via the ... SECONDARY_ROLE({ALLOW_CONNECTIONS = ALL})... command, clearly states that this feature is not available in the Standard version of SQL Server.
My whole confusion comes from the fact that on the Microsoft documentation (MS DOCS), it says that With availability groups, one or more secondary replicas can be configured to support read-only access to secondary databases. which is exactly what I'm not succeeding in.
Did anybody have the same issue, or knows how to configure the Read-Scale availability group on SQL Server Standard so my second replica is accessible and readable as well?
P.S. I did look at the actual SQL Replication with Transaction Replication, but there are quite a bit of moving parts there, so I'm exploring all options before making a decision.
Based on a twitter conversation I found out that you will need to create a snapshot of the database in Secondary Replica in order to read from there.
Please read this tweeter thread.
I also added a suggestion in the feedback channel to fix the documentation.
I have a laravel app running and a master slave implementation. the master is used for writing and the slave is used for reading. However how do we work with sessions if we write to session table and grab from sessions table right after user is logged in? Is there anyway we can make certain read requests to the master instead?
If I inderstood the question right, you could use the DB::on method described in: Specifying The Query Connection
How to set up a local mongodb with mirror on mongolab (propagate all writes from local to mongolab, so they are always synchronized - I don't care about atomic, just that it syncs in a reasonable time frame)
How to use mongolab as a fallback if local server stops working (Ruby/Rails, mongo driver and mongoid).
Background: I used to have a local mongo server but it kept crashing occasionally and all my apps stopped working + I had to "repair" the DB to restart it. Then I switched to mongolab which I am very satisfied with, but it's generating a lot of traffic which I'd like to avoid by having a local "cache", but without having to worry about my local cache crashing causing all my apps to stop working. The DBs are relatively small so size is not an issue. I'm not trying to eliminate the traffic overhead of communicating to mongolab, just lower it a bit.
I'm assuming you don't want to have the mongolab instance just be part of a replica set (or perhaps that is not offered). The easiest way would be to add the remote mongod instance as a hidden member (priority 0) and just have it replicate data from your local instance.
An alternative immediate solution you could use is mongooplog which can be used to poll the oplog on one server and then apply it to another. Essentially replication on demand (you would need to seed one instance appropriately etc. and would need to manage any failures). More information here:
http://docs.mongodb.org/manual/reference/mongooplog/
The last option would be to write something yourself using a tailable cursor in your language of choice to feed the oplog data into the remote instance.