Could I, in theory, have 10,000 nodes all with a 1 gig hd and store a 100 gig db between them?
Is there certain options I need to set for this? Or config I need?
Thank you.
Each node does not need to hold the entire database.
The cockroach binary inspects the machine it's running on and find the available disk space; this information gets shared with other nodes via the Gossip protocol, and Cockroach algorithmically decides how best to store the data (controlled by your Replication Zones).
However, the aggregate disk space available should be > 3x the size of your database. For example, a 100gig DB needs at least 300gigs total across all of the machines in your cluster.
To answer your follow-on questions:
You could theoretically have 10,000 nodes each with a 1gig hard drive store a 100gig DB between them. This isn't realistic, though, because Cockroach might currently (as of 1.0.1) have some problems with 10,000 nodes communicating. Cockroach Labs just hasn't tested anything of that volume.
No special settings or config needed for that. Like I mentioned, everything is handled algorithmically.
Related
I have a single node MemSQL install with one master aggregator and two leaves (all on a single box). The machine has 2 cores, 16Gb RAM, and MemSQL columnstore data is ~7Gb (coming from 21Gb CSV). When running queries on the data, memory usage caps at ~2150Mb (11Gb sitting free). I've configured both leaves to have maximum_memory = 7000 in the memsql.cnf files for both nodes (memsql-optimize does similar). During query execution, the master aggregator sits at 100% CPU, with the leaves 0-8% CPU.
This does not seems like an efficient use of system resources, but I'm not sure what I can do to configure the system or MemSQL to make more efficient use of CPU or memory. Any help would be greatly appreciated!
If during query execution your machine is at 100% cpu (on all cores), it doesn't really matter which MemSQL node it is, your workload throughput is still bottlenecked on cpu. However for most queries you wouldn't expect most of the cpu use to be on the aggregator, so you may want to take a look at EXPLAIN or PROFILE of your queries.
Columnstore data is cached in memory as part of the OS file cache - it isn't counted as memory reserved by MemSQL, which is why your memory usage is less than the size of the columnstore data.
My database was coming from some other place than the current memsql install (perhaps an older cluster configuration) despite there only being a single memsql cluster on the machine. Looking at the Databases section in the Web UI was displaying no databases/tables, but my queries were succeeded with the expected answers.
drop database/reload from CSV managed to remedy the situation. All core threads are now used during query.
In oracle we use RMAN for one base storage for all cluster nodes, so can we have multiple data nodes but only with one storage disk.
Can all storage node act like RAID 5?
You can always mount the same disk on different nodes and store data there. But then that defies the philosophy of replicas and sharding in Elasticsearch. The idea of replicas is to sustain the cluster even if a hard disk or hardware goes down. Here , if a single disk goes down , we will loose the entire cluster data. And in sharding we try to use apply parllel computation on independent hardware so as to improve performance. But then here we are using the same disk. So i don't think this is a good idea.
If you are still going ahead with this plan , make sure you force awareness so that unwanted replicas are not made.
I know Cassandra is good in multiple nodes set up. The more nodes,the better performance. If I have two dedicated servers with same hardware, it would be good I create some virtual machines in both of them to have more nodes, or not?
For example I have two dedicated server with this specifications:
1TB hard drive
64 GB RAM
8 core CPU
then create 8 virtual machine(nodes) in both of them. each of them has:
~150GB hard drive
8 GB RAM
share 8 core CPU
So I have 16 nodes. Are these 16 nodes had better performance than 2 nodes with this two dedicated server?
In the other word which side of this trade off is better, more nodes with lower hardware or two stronger nodes?
I know it should be tested, but I want to know basically is it reasonable or not?
Adding new nodes always adds some overhead, they need to communicate within each other and sync their data. Therefore, the more nodes you add, you'd expect the overhead to increase with adding each node. You'd add more nodes only in a situation where the existing number of nodes can't handle the input/output demands. Since in the situation you are describing , you'd be actually writing on the same disk, you'd actually effectively be slowing down your cluster by adding more nodes.
Imagine the situation: you have a server, it receives some data and then writes it on disk. Now imagine the same situation, where the disk is shared between two servers and they both write the same information at the almost same time on the same disk. The two servers also use cpu cycles to communicate between each other that the data has been written so they can sync up. I think this is a sufficient enough information to describe to you why what you are thinking is not a good idea if you can avoid it.
EDIT:
Of course, this is the information only in layman's terms, C* has a very nice architecture in which data is actually spread according to an algorithm to a certain range of nodes (not all of them) and when you are querying for a specific key, the algorithm actually can tell you where to find the data. With that said, when you add and remove nodes, the new nodes have to communicate with the cluster that they want to share 'the burden' and as a result, a recalculation of what is known as a 'token-ring' takes place at the end of which data may be shuffled around so it is accessible in a predictable way.
You can take a look at this:
http://www.datastax.com/dev/blog/upgrading-an-existing-cluster-to-vnodes-2
But in general, there is indeed some overhead when nodes communicate with each other, but the number of the nodes would almost never negatively or positively impact your query speed dramatically if you are querying for a single key.
"I know it should be tested, but I want to know basically is it reasonable or not?"
That will answer most of your assumptions.
The basic advantage of using cassandra is availability. If you are planning to have just two dedicated servers, then there is a question mark on your availability of data. Considering the worst case, you always have just two replicas of data at any point of time.
My take is to go for a nicely split dedicated set up in small chunks. Everything boils down to your use case.
1.If you have a lot of data flowing in and if you consider data as king(in such a case , you need more replicas to handle in case of failures), i would prefer a high end distributed set up.
2.If you are looking for the other way around(data is not your forte and your data is just another part of your set up), you shall just go for the set up what you have mentioned.
3.If you have a cost constraint and if you are a start up with a minimal data that is important to you, set up in two nodes what you have with replication of 2(Simple Strategy ) and replication of 1(Network Topology)
I have an Oracle Database with around 7 millions of records/day and I want to switch to MongoDB. (~300Gb)
To setup a POC, I'd like to know how many nodes I need? I think 2 replica of 3 node in 2 shard will be enough but I want to know your thinking about it :)
I'd like to have an HA setup :)
Thanks in advance!
For MongoDB to work efficiently, you need to know your working set size..You need to know how much data does 7 million records/day amounts to. This is active data that will need to stay in RAM for high performance.
Also, be very sure WHY you are migrating to Mongo. I'm guessing..in your case, it is scalability..
but know your data well before doing so.
For your POC, keeping two shards means roughly 150GB on each.. If you have that much disk available, no problem.
Give some consideration to your sharding keys, what fields does it make sense for you to shared your data set on? This will impact on the decision of how many shards to deploy, verses the capacity of each shard. You might go with relatively few shards maybe two or three big deep shards if your data can be easily segmented into half or thirds, or several more lighter thinner shards if you can shard on a more diverse key.
It is relatively straightforward to upgrade from a MongoDB replica set configuration to a sharded cluster (each shard is actually a replica set). Rather than predetermining that sharding is the right solution to start with, I would think about what your reasons for sharding are (eg. will your application requirements outgrow the resources of a single machine; how much of your data set will be active working set for queries, etc).
It would be worth starting with replica sets and benchmarking this as part of planning your architecture and POC.
Some notes to get you started:
MongoDB's journaling, which is enabled by default as of 1.9.2, provides crash recovery and durability in the storage engine.
Replica sets are the building block for high availability, automatic failover, and data redundancy. Each replica set needs a minimum of three nodes (for example, three data nodes or two data nodes and an arbiter) to enable failover to a new primary via an election.
Sharding is useful for horizontal scaling once your data or writes exceed the resources of a single server.
Other considerations include planning your documents based on your application usage .. for example, if your documents will be updated frequently and grow in size over time, you may want to consider manual padding to prevent excessive document moves.
If this is your first MongoDB project you should definitely read the FAQs on Replica Sets and Sharding with MongoDB, as well as for Application Developers.
Note that choosing a good shard key for your use case is an important consideration. A poor choice of shard key can lead to "hot spots" for data writes, or unbalanced shards if you plan to delete large amounts of data.
We're looking for a good solution to a caching problem. We'd like to distribute a relatively small amount of data (perhaps 10's of GBs) among a cluster of web servers such that:
The data is replicated to all nodes
The data is persistent
The data can be accessed locally
Our motivation for a caching solution is that we currently have a single point of failure: a SQL Server database. We're unable to set up a fail-over cluster for this database, unfortunately. We're already using Memcached to a large extent, but we want to avoid the problem where if a Memcached node goes down, we'd suddenly have a large amount of cache misses and therefore experience a massive amount of requests to one endpoint.
We'd prefer instead to have local persistent caches on each web server node so that the resulting load would be distributed. When a retrieval is made, it would pass through the following:
Check for data in Memcached. If it's not there...
Check for data in local persistent storage. If it's not there...
Retrieve data from the database.
When data changes, the cache key is invalidated at both caching layers.
We've been looking at a bunch of potential solutions, but none of them seem to match exactly what we need:
CouchDB
This is pretty close; the data model we'd like to cache is very document-oriented. However, its replication model isn't exactly what we're looking for. It seems to me as though replication is an action you have to perform rather than a permanent relationship among nodes. You can set up continuous replication, but this doesn't persist between restarts.
Cassandra
This solution seems to be mostly geared toward those with large storage requirements. We have a large amount of users, but small amounts of data. Cassandra looks to be able to support n number of fail-over nodes, but 100% replication among nodes doesn't seem to be what it's intended for; instead, it seems more geared toward distribution only.
SAN
One attractive idea is that we can store a bunch of files on a SAN or similar type of appliance. I haven't worked with these before, but it seems like this would still be a single point of failure; if the SAN goes down, we'd suddenly be going to the database for all cache misses.
DFS Replication
A simple Google search revealed this. It seems to do what we want; it synchronizes files across all nodes in a replication cluster. But the marketing text makes it look like it's more of a system for ensuring documents are copied to different office locations. Also, it has limits, like a file count maximum, that wouldn't work well for us.
Have any of you had similar requirements to ours and found a good solution that meets your needs?
We've been using Riak successfully in production for several months now for a problem that's somewhat similar to what you describe. We too have evaluated CouchDB and Cassandra before.
The advantage of Riak in this sort of problems imo is that distribution and data replication are at the core of the system. You define how many replicas of the data across the cluster you want and it takes care of the rest (it's a bit more complicated than that of course, but that's the essence). We went through adding nodes, removing nodes, had nodes crush, and it's proven surprisingly resilient.
It's a lot like Couch in other matters - document oriented, REST interface, Erlang.
You can check the hazelcast.
It does not persist the data but provides a fail-over system. Each node can have a number of nodes to backup it's data in case a node fails.