I'm new to everything that is 'the cloud.'
I will be developing a website/platform that will have around 15,000,000 estimated monthly visitors after the first year of production.
I'm assuming that the site will have 5 page views per visitor, and 100kb of data transfer per page.
I've contacted several cloud hosting companies, but they tell me that I need to have 'hardware requirements.'
Since I'm rather clueless about IT stuff, I'd like to know:
What are the factors that need to be analyzed in order to determine
How many servers are required
VPUs / server required
RAM / server required
Total storage / server required
Big thanks in advance!
I don't agree with the other answer as it's nearly total guesswork, as will anything you can generate yourself.
The only surefire way to know is to get some hardware, stick your application on it and run some load testing to see if you can get to the point you want to traffic wise, and with a certain amount of free overhead on the servers. Only then will you know what you need. No-one else can answer this question as every application is different. This is your application, only you can test it.
Data given wont help much in determining what numbers you want. But based on my experience I'll try to help you in analysis.
15,000,000 visits a month means 700K visits a day (assuming approx 30-35% visits are by repeat visitors).
700Kx5=3.5million page views a day.
Assuming 14 hours of active period, typical for single timezeone sites. Its 70reqs/sec.
With this big userbase few thing you surely need is a high performance DB server, with one slave.
Config of these DB server
Memory so that whole active data + indexes fits in memory (No swapping/thrashing should happen). This you need to calculate based on
what you will be storing for user and for how long.
Use some reliable storage like RAID10 (higher read/write bandwith).
Take enough storage, see that its elastic enough. (like AWS EBS).
Make frontend app server lightweight and horizontally scalable. Put them behind a loadbalancer (use software loadbalancer like nginx or HAproxy). You should be able to put as many as you go to your goal.
For loadbalacer and frontend take 4CPU, 4-8GB RAM servers.
How much each frontend can take need to be tested using a load testing method and realistic test data.
Reduce load on database/persistent using a inmemory/+persistent caches like memcached/membase/redis etc. Take a servers with 8GB and add more as you feel need.
I have not discussed about DB partitioning. Do that only when you feel the need of it. Do not over invest at start.
With 15M users a month, this setup should be enough, but again it all depends on you 1. memory footprint, 2. amount of active data
I tried to answer as much as possible. Comments on points you disagree or wanna discuss more.
I am implementing my first syncing code. In my case I will have 2 types of iOS clients per user that will sync records to a server using a lastSyncTimestamp, a 64 bit integer representing the Unix epoch in milliseconds of the last sync. Records can be created on the server or the clients at any time and the records are exchanged as JSON over HTTP.
I am not worried about conflicts as there are few updates and always from the same user. However, I am wondering if there are common things that I need to be aware of that can go wrong with a timestamp based approach such as syncing during daylight savings time, syncs conflicting with another, or other gotchas.
I know that git and some other version control system eschew syncing with timestamps for a content based negotiation syncing approach. I could imagine such an approach for my apps too, where using the uuid or hash of the objects, both peers announce which objects they own, and then exchange them until both peers have the same sets.
If anybody knows any advantages or disadvantages of content-based syncing versus timestamp-based syncing in general that would be helpful as well.
Edit - Here are some of the advantages/disadvantages that I have come up with for timestamp and content based syncing. Please challenge/correct.
Note - I am defining content-based syncing as simple negotiation of 2 sets of objects such as how 2 kids would exchange cards if you gave them each parts of a jumbled up pile of 2 identical sets of baseball cards and told them that as they look through them to announce and hand over any duplicates they found to the other until they both have identical sets.
Johnny - "I got this card."
Davey - "I got this bunch of cards. Give me that card."
Johnny - "Here is your card. Gimme that bunch of cards."
Davey - "Here are your bunch of cards."
....
Both - "We are done"
Advantages of timestamp-based syncing
Easy to implement
Single property used for syncing.
Disadvantages of timestamp-based syncing
Time is a relative concept to the observer and different machine's clocks can be out of sync. There are a couple ways to solve this. Generate timestamp on a single machine, which doesn't scale well and represents a single point of failure. Or use logical clocks such as vector clocks. For the average developer building their own system, vector clocks might be too complex to implement.
Timestamp based syncing works for client to master syncing but doesn't work as well for peer to peer syncing or where syncing can occur with 2 masters.
Single point of failure, whatever generates the timestamp.
Time is not really related to the content of what is being synced.
Advantages of content-based syncing
No per peer timestamp needs to be maintained. 2 peers can start a sync session and start syncing based on the content.
Well defined endpoint to sync - when both parties have identical sets.
Allows a peer to peer architecture, where any peer can act as client or server, providing they can host an HTTP server.
Sync works with the content of the sets, not with an abstract concept time.
Since sync is built around content, sync can be used to do content verification if desired. E.g. a SHA-1 hash can be computed on the content and used as the uuid. It can be compared to what is sent during syncing.
Even further, SHA-1 hashes can be based on previous hashes to maintain a consistent history of content.
Disadvantages of content-based syncing
Extra properties on your objects may be needed to implement.
More logic on both sides compared to timestamp based syncing.
Slightly more chatty protocol (this could be tuned by syncing content in clusters).
Part of the problem is that time is not an absolute concept. Whether something happens before or after something else is a matter of perspective, not of compliance with a wall clock.
Read up a bit on relativity of simultaneity to understand why people have stopped trying to use wall time for figuring these things out and have moved to constructs that represent actual causality using vector clocks (or at least Lamport clocks).
If you want to use a clock for synchronization, a logical clock will likely suit you best. You will avoid all of your clock sync issues and stuff.
I don't know if it applies in your environment, but you might consider whose time is "right", the client or the server (or if it even matters)? If all clients and all servers are not sync'd to the same time source there could be the possibility, however slight, of a client getting an unexpected result when syncing to (or from) the server using the client's "now" time.
Our development organization actually ran into some issues with this several years ago. Developer machines were not all sync'd to the same time source as the server where the SCM resided (and might not have been sync'd to any time source, thus the developer machine time could drift). A developer machine could be several minutes off after a few months. I don't recall all of the issues, but it seems like the build process tried to get all files modified since a certain time (the last build). Files could have been checked in, since the last build, that had modification times (from the client) that occurred BEFORE the last build.
It could be that our SCM procedures were just not very good, or that our SCM system or build process were unduly susceptible to this problem. Even today, all of our development machines are supposed to sync time with the server that has our SCM system on it.
Again, this was several years ago and I can't recall the details, but I wanted to mention it on the chance that it is significant in your case.
You could have a look at unison. It's file-based but you might find some of the ideas interesting.
Ok, so the situation is as follows.
I have a server with services for a game, a particular command from the server sends a timestamp for when the next game round should commence. To get this perfectly synced on all connected clients I also have a webbservice that returns a timestamp of the servers current time.
What I know: the time between request sent and answer recieved.
What I dont know: where the latency lies, on client processing or server processing or bandwidth issues.
What is the best practice to get a reasonable result here. I guess that GPS must have solved this in some fashion but I´ve been unable to find a good pattern.
What I do now is to add half the latency of the request to the server timestamp, but it's not quite good enough. This may have to do that the time between send and recieve can be as high as 11 seconds.
Suggestions?
There're many common solutions to sync time between machines, including correct PLL implementation done by NTPD with RTP. This is useful to you if you can change machine's local time. If not, perhaps you should do more or less what you did, but drop sync points where the latency is unreasonable.
The best practice is usually not to synchronise the absolute times but to work with relative times instead.
Suppose you have a web application, no specific stack (Java/.NET/LAMP/Django/Rails, all good).
How would you decide on which hardware to deploy it? What rules of thumb exist when determining how many machines you need?
How would you formulate parameters such as concurrent users, simultaneous connections, daily hits and DB read/write ratio to a decision on how much, and which, hardware you need?
Any resources on this issue would be very helpful...
Specifically - any hard numbers from real world experience and case studies would be great.
Capacity Planning is quite a detailed and extensive area. You'll need to accept an iterative model with a "Theoretical Baseline > Load Testing > Tuning & Optimizing" approach.
Theory
The first step is to decide on the Business requirements: how many users are expected for peak usage ? Remember - these numbers are usually inaccurate by some margin.
As an example, let's assume that all the peak traffic (at worst case) will be over 4 hours of the day. So if the website expects 100K hits per day, we dont divide that over 24 hours, but over 4 hours instead. So my site now needs to support a peak traffic of 25K hits per hour.
This breaks down to 417 hits per minute, or 7 hits per second. This is on the front end alone.
Add to this the number of internal transactions such as database operations, any file i/o per user, any batch jobs which might run within the system, reports etc.
Tally all these up to get the number of transactions per second, per minute etc that your system needs to support.
This gets further complicated when you have requirements such as "Avg response time must be 3 seconds etc" which means you have to figure in network latency / firewall / proxy etc
Finally - when it comes to choosing hardware, check out the published datasheets from each manufacturer such as Sun, HP, IBM, Windows etc. These detail the maximum transactions per second under test conditions. We usually accept 50% of those peaks under real conditions :)
But ultimately the choice of the hardware is usually a commercial decision.
Also you need to keep a minimum of 2 servers at each tier : web / app / even db for failover clustering.
Load testing
It's recommended to have a separate reference testing environment throughout the project lifecycle and post-launch so you can come back to run dedicated performance tests on the app. Scale this to be a smaller version of production, so if Prod has 4 servers and Ref has 1, then you test for 25% of the peak transactions etc.
Tuning & Optimizing
Too often, people throw some expensive hardware together and expect it all to work beautifully. You'll need to tune the hardware and OS for various parameters such as TCP timeouts etc - these are published by the software vendors, and these have to be done once the software are finalized. Set these tuning params on the Ref env, test and then decide which ones you need to carry over to Production.
Determine your expected load.
Setup a machine and run some tests against it with a Load testing tool.
How close are you if you only accomplished 10% of the peak load with some margin for error then you know you are going to need some load balancing. Design and implement a solution and test again. Make sure you solution is flexible enough to scale.
Trial and error is pretty much the way to go. It really depends on the individual app and usage patterns.
Test your app with a sample load and measure performance and load metrics. DB queries, disk hits, latency, whatever.
Then get an estimate of the expected load when deployed (go ask the domain expert) (you have to consider average load AND spikes).
Multiply the two and add some just to be sure. That's a really rough idea of what you need.
Then implement it, keeping in mind you usually won't scale linearly and you probably won't get the expected load ;)
I want to create a system that delivers user interface response within 100ms, but which requires minutes of computation. Fortunately, I can divide it up into very small pieces, so that I could distribute this to a lot of servers, let's say 1500 servers. The query would be delivered to one of them, which then redistributes to 10-100 other servers, which then redistribute etc., and after doing the math, results propagate back again and are returned by a single server. In other words, something similar to Google Search.
The problem is, what technology should I use? Cloud computing sounds obvious, but the 1500 servers need to be prepared for their task by having task-specific data available. Can this be done using any of the existing cloud computing platforms? Or should I create 1500 different cloud computing applications and upload them all?
Edit: Dedicated physical servers does not make sense, because the average load will be very, very small. Therefore, it also does not make sense, that we run the servers ourselves - it needs to be some kind of shared servers at an external provider.
Edit2: I basically want to buy 30 CPU minutes in total, and I'm willing to spend up to $3000 on it, equivalent to $144,000 per CPU-day. The only criteria is, that those 30 CPU minutes are spread across 1500 responsive servers.
Edit3: I expect the solution to be something like "Use Google Apps, create 1500 apps and deploy them" or "Contact XYZ and write an asp.net script which their service can deploy, and you pay them based on the amount of CPU time you use" or something like that.
Edit4: A low-end webservice provider, offering asp.net at $1/month would actually solve the problem (!) - I could create 1500 accounts, and the latency is ok (I checked), and everything would be ok - except that I need the 1500 accounts to be on different servers, and I don't know any provider that has enough servers that is able to distribute my accounts on different servers. I am fully aware that the latency will differ from server to server, and that some may be unreliable - but that can be solved in software by retrying on different servers.
Edit5: I just tried it and benchmarked a low-end webservice provider at $1/month. They can do the node calculations and deliver results to my laptop in 15ms, if preloaded. Preloading can be done by making a request shortly before the actual performance is needed. If a node does not respond within 15ms, that node's part of the task can be distributed to a number of other servers, of which one will most likely respond within 15ms. Unfortunately, they don't have 1500 servers, and that's why I'm asking here.
[in advance, apologies to the group for using part of the response space for meta-like matters]
From the OP, Lars D:
I do not consider [this] answer to be an answer to the question, because it does not bring me closer to a solution. I know what cloud computing is, and I know that the algorithm can be perfectly split into more than 300,000 servers if needed, although the extra costs wouldn't give much extra performance because of network latency.
Lars,
I sincerely apologize for reading and responding to your question at a naive and generic level. I hope you can see how both the lack of specifity in the question itself, particularly in its original form, and also the somewhat unusual nature of the problem (1) would prompt me respond to the question in like fashion. This, and the fact that such questions on SO typically emanate from hypotheticals by folks who have put but little thought and research into the process, are my excuses for believing that I, a non-practionner [of massively distributed systems], could help your quest. The many similar responses (some of which had the benefits of the extra insight you provided) and also the many remarks and additional questions addressed to you show that I was not alone with this mindset.
(1) Unsual problem: An [apparently] mostly computational process (no mention of distributed/replicated storage structures), very highly paralellizable (1,500 servers), into fifty-millisecondish-sized tasks which collectively provide a sub-second response (? for human consumption?). And yet, a process that would only be required a few times [daily..?].
Enough looking back!
In practical terms, you may consider some of the following to help improve this SO question (or move it to other/alternate questions), and hence foster the help from experts in the domain.
re-posting as a distinct (more specific) question. In fact, probably several questions: eg. on the [likely] poor latency and/or overhead of mapreduce processes, on the current prices (for specific TOS and volume details), on the rack-awareness of distributed processes at various vendors etc.
Change the title
Add details about the process you have at hand (see many questions in the notes of both the question and of many of the responses)
in some of the questions, add tags specific to a give vendor or technique (EC2, Azure...) as this my bring in the possibly not quite unbuyist but helpful all the same, commentary from agents at these companies
Show that you understand that your quest is somewhat of a tall order
Explicitly state that you wish responses from effective practionners of the underlying technologies (maybe also include folks that are "getting their feet wet" with these technologies as well, since with the exception of the physics/high-energy folks and such, who BTW traditionnaly worked with clusters rather than clouds, many of the technologies and practices are relatively new)
Also, I'll be pleased to take the hint from you (with the implicit non-veto from other folks on this page), to delete my response, if you find that doing so will help foster better responses.
-- original response--
Warning: Not all processes or mathematical calculations can readily be split in individual pieces that can then be run in parallel...
Maybe you can check Wikipedia's entry from Cloud Computing, understanding that cloud computing is however not the only architecture which allows parallel computing.
If your process/calculation can efficitively be chunked in parallelizable pieces, maybe you can look into Hadoop, or other implementations of MapReduce, for an general understanding about these parallel processes. Also, (and I believe utilizing the same or similar algorithms), there also exist commercially available frameworks such as EC2 from amazon.
Beware however that the above systems are not particularly well suited for very quick response time. They fare better with hour long (and then some) data/number crunching and similar jobs, rather than minute long calculations such as the one you wish to parallelize so it provides results in 1/10 second.
The above frameworks are generic, in a sense that they could run processes of most any nature (again, the ones that can at least in part be chunked), but there also exist various offerings for specific applications such as searching or DNA matching etc. The search applications in particular can have very short response times (cf Google for example) and BTW this is in part tied to fact that such jobs can very easily and quickly be chunked for parallel processing.
Sorry, but you are expecting too much.
The problem is that you are expecting to pay for processing power only. Yet your primary constraint is latency, and you expect that to come for free. That doesn't work out. You need to figure out what your latency budgets are.
The mere aggregating of data from multiple compute servers will take several milliseconds per level. There will be a gaussian distribution here, so with 1500 servers the slowest server will respond after 3σ. Since there's going to be a need for a hierarchy, the second level with 40 servers , where again you'll be waiting for the slowest server.
Internet roundtrips also add up quickly; that too should take 20 to 30 ms of your latency budget.
Another consideration is that these hypothethical servers will spend much of their time idle. That means they're powered on, drawing electricity yet not generating revenue. Any party with that many idle servers would turn them off, or at the very least in sleep mode just to conserve electricity.
MapReduce is not the solution! Map Reduce is used in Google, Yahoo and Microsoft for creating the indexes out of the huge data (the whole Web!) they have on their disk. This task is enormous and Map Reduce was built to make it happens in hours instead of years, but starting a Master controller of Map Reduce is already 2 seconds, so for your 100ms this is not an option.
Now, from Hadoop you may get advantages out of the distributed file system. It may allow you to distribute the tasks close to where the data is physically, but that's it. BTW: Setting up and managing an Hadoop Distributed File System means controlling your 1500 servers!
Frankly in your budget I don't see any "cloud" service that will allow you to rent 1500 servers. The only viable solution, is renting time on a Grid Computing solution like Sun and IBM are offering, but they want you to commit to hours of CPU from what I know.
BTW: On Amazon EC2 you have a new server up in a couple of minutes that you need to keep for an hour minimum!
Hope you'll find a solution!
I don't get why you would want to do that, only because "Our user interfaces generally aim to do all actions in less than 100ms, and that criteria should also apply to this".
First, 'aim to' != 'have to', its a guideline, why would u introduce these massive process just because of that. Consider 1500 ms x 100 = 150 secs = 2.5 mins. Reducing the 2.5 mins to a few seconds its a much more healthy goal. There is a place for 'we are processing your request' along with an animation.
So my answer to this is - post a modified version of the question with reasonable goals: a few secs, 30-50 servers. I don't have the answer for that one, but the question as posted here feels wrong. Could even be 6-8 multi-processor servers.
Google does it by having a gigantic farm of small Linux servers, networked together. They use a flavor of Linux that they have custom modified for their search algorithms. Costs are software development and cheap PC's.
It would seem that you are indeed expecting at least 1000-fold speedup from distributing your job to a number of computers. That may be ok. Your latency requirement seems tricky, though.
Have you considered the latencies inherent in distributing the job? Essentially the computers would have to be fairly close together in order to not run into speed of light issues. Also, the data center in which the machines would be would again have to be fairly close to your client so that you can get your request to them and back in less than 100 ms. On the same continent, at least.
Also note that any extra latency requires you to have many more nodes in the system. Losing 50% of available computing time to latency or anything else that doesn't parallelize requires you to double the computing capacity of the parallel portions just to keep up.
I doubt a cloud computing system would be the best fit for a problem like this. My impression at least is that the proponents of cloud computing would prefer to not even tell you where your machines are. Certainly I haven't seen any latency terms in the SLAs that are available.
You have conflicting requirements. You're requirement for 100ms latency is directly at odds with your desire to only run your program sporadically.
One of the characteristics of the Google-search type approach you mentioned in your question is that the latency of the cluster is dependent on the slowest node. So you could have 1499 machines respond in under 100ms, but if one machine took longer, say 1s - whether due to a retry, or because it needed to page you application in, or bad connectivity - your whole cluster would take 1s to produce an answer. It's inescapable with this approach.
The only way to achieve the kinds of latencies you're seeking would be to have all of the machines in your cluster keep your program loaded in RAM - along with all the data it needs - all of the time. Having to load your program from disk, or even having to page it in from disk, is going to take well over 100ms. As soon as one of your servers has to hit the disk, it is game over for your 100ms latency requirement.
In a shared server environment, which is what we're talking about here given your cost constraints, it is a near certainty that at least one of your 1500 servers is going to need to hit the disk in order to activate your app.
So you are either going to have to pay enough to convince someone to keep you program active and in memory at all times, or you're going to have to loosen your latency requirements.
Two trains of thought:
a) if those restraints are really, absolutely, truly founded in common sense, and doable in the way you propose in the nth edit, it seems the presupplied data is not huge. So how about trading storage for precomputation to time. How big would the table(s) be? Terabytes are cheap!
b) This sounds a lot like a employer / customer request that is not well founded in common sense. (from my experience)
Let´s assume the 15 minutes of computation time on one core. I guess thats what you say.
For a reasonable amount of money, you can buy a system with 16 proper, 32 hyperthreading cores and 48 GB RAM.
This should bring us in the 30 second range.
Add a dozen Terabytes of storage, and some precomputation.
Maybe a 10x increase is reachable there.
3 secs.
Are 3 secs too slow? If yes, why?
Sounds like you need to utilise an algorithm like MapReduce: Simplified Data Processing on Large Clusters
Wiki.
Check out Parallel computing and related articles in this WikiPedia-article - "Concurrent programming languages, libraries, APIs, and parallel programming models have been created for programming parallel computers." ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_computing
Although Cloud Computing is the cool new kid in town, your scenario sounds more like you need a cluster, i.e. how can I use parallelism to solve a problem in a shorter time.
My solution would be:
Understand that if you got a problem that can be solved in n time steps on one cpu, does not guarantee that it can be solved in n/m on m cpus. Actually n/m is the theoretical lower limit. Parallelism is usually forcing you to communicate more and therefore you'll hardly ever achieve this limit.
Parallelize your sequential algorithm, make sure it is still correct and you don't get any race conditions
Find a provider, see what he can offer you in terms of programming languages / APIs (no experience with that)
What you're asking for doesn't exist, for the simple reason that doing this would require having 1500 instances of your application (likely with substantial in-memory data) idle on 1500 machines - consuming resources on all of them. None of the existing cloud computing offerings bill on such a basis. Platforms like App Engine and Azure don't give you direct control over how your application is distributed, while platforms like Amazon's EC2 charge by the instance-hour, at a rate that would cost you over $2000 a day.