Lets star with background. I have an api endpoint that I have to query every 15 minutes and that returns complex data. Unfortunately this endpoint does not provide information of what exactly changed. So it requires me to compare the data that I have in db and compare everything and than execute update, add or delete. This is pretty boring...
I came to and idea that I can simply remove all data from certain tables and build everything from scratch... But it I have to also return this cached data to my clients. So there might be a situation that the db will be empty during some request from my client because it will be "refreshing/rebulding". And that cant happen because I have to return something
So I cam to and idea to
Lock the certain db tables so that the client will have to wait for the "refreshing the db"
or
CQRS https://martinfowler.com/bliki/CQRS.html
Do you have any suggestions how to solve the problem?
It sounds like you're using a relational database, so I'll try to outline a solution using database terms. The idea, however, is more general than that. In general, it's similar to Blue-Green deployment.
Have two data tables (or two databases, for that matter); one is active, and one is inactive.
When the software starts the update process, it can wipe the inactive table and write new data into it. During this process, the system keeps serving data from the active table.
Once the data update is entirely done, the system can begin to serve data from the previously inactive table. In other words, the inactive table becomes the active table, and vice versa.
In an application we have to send sensory data stream from multiple clients to a central server over internet. One obvious solution is to use MOMs (Message Oriented Middlewares) such as Kafka, but I recently learned that we can do this with data base synchronization tools such as oracle Materialized View.
The later approach works in some application (sending data from a central server to multiple clients, inverse directin of our application), but what is the pros and cons of it in our application? Which one is better for sending sensory data stream from multiple (~100) clients to server in terms of speed, security, etc.?
Thanks.
P.S.
For more detail consider an application in which many (about 100) clients have to send streaming data (1MB data per minute) to a central server over internet. The data are needed in server for the sake of online monitoring, analysis and some computation such as machine learning and data mining tasks.
My question is about the difference between db-to-db connection and streaming solutions such as kafka for trasfering data from clients to server.
Prologue
I'm going to try and break your question down into in order to get a clearer understanding of your current requirements and then build it back up again. This has taken a long time to write so I'd really appreciate it if you do two things off the back of it:
Be sceptical - there's absolutely no substitute for testing things yourself. The internet is very useful as a guide but there's no guarantee that the help you receive (if this answer is even helpful!) is the best thing for your specific situation. It's impossible to completely describe your current situation in the space allotted and so any answer is, of necessity, going to be lacking somewhere.
Look again at how you explained yourself - this is a valid question that's been partially stopped by a lack of clarity in your description of the system and what you're trying to achieve. Getting someone unfamiliar with your system to look over your question before posting a complex question may help.
Problem definition
sensory data stream from multiple clients to a central server
You're sending data from multiple locations to a single persistence store
online monitoring
You're going to be triggering further actions based off the raw data and potentially some aggregated data
analysis and some computation such as machine learning and data mining tasks
You're going to be performing some aggregations on the clients' data, i.e. you require aggregations of all of the clients' data to be persisted (however temporarily) somewhere
Further assumptions
Because you're talking about materialized views we can assume that all the clients persist data in a database, probably Oracle.
The data coming in from your clients is about the same topic.
You've got ~100 clients, at that amount we can assume that:
the number of clients might change
you want to be able to add clients without increasing the number of methods of accessing data
You don't work for one of Google, Amazon, Facebook, Quantcast, Apple etc.
Architecture diagram
Here, I'm not making any comment on how it's actually going to work - it's the start of a discussion based on my lack of knowledge of your systems. The "raw data persistence" can be files, Kafka, a database etc. This is description of the components that are going to be required and a rough guess as to how they will have to connect.
Applying assumed architecture to materialized views
Materialized views are a persisted query. Therefore you have two choices:
Create a query that unions all 100 clients data together. If you add or remove a client you must change the query. If a network issue occurs at any one of your clients then everything fails
Write and maintain 100 materialized views. The Oracle database at your central location has 100 incoming connections.
As you can probably guess from the tradeoffs you'll have to make I do not like materialized views as the sole solution. We should be trying to reduce the amount of repeated code and single points of failure.
You can still use materialized views though. If we take our diagram and remove all the duplicated arrows in your central location it implies two things.
There is a single service that accepts incoming data
There is a single service that puts all the incoming data into a single place
You could then use a single materialized view for your aggregation layer (if your raw data persistence isn't in Oracle you'll first have to put the data into Oracle).
Consequences of changes
Now we've decided that you have a single data pipeline your decisions actually become harder. We've decoupled your clients from the central location and the aggregation layer from our raw data persistence. This means that the choices are now yours but they're also considerably easier to change.
Reimagining architecture
Here we need to work out what technologies aren't going to change.
Oracle databases are expensive and you're pushing 140GB/day into yours (that's 50TB/year by the way, quite a bit). I don't know if you're actually storing all the raw data but at those volumes it's less likely that you are - you're only storing the aggregations
I'm assuming you've got some preferred technologies where your machine learning and data mining happen. If you don't then consider getting some to prevent madness supporting everything
Putting all of this together we end up with the following. There's actually only one question that matters:
How many times do you want to read your raw data off your database.
If the answer to that is once then we've just described middleware of some description. If the answer is more than once then I would reconsider unless you've got some very good disks. Whether you use Kafka for this middle layer is completely up to you. Use whatever you're most familiar with and whatever you're most willing to invest the time into learning and supporting. The amount of data you're dealing with is non-trivial and there's going to be some trial and error getting this right.
One final point about this; we've defined a data pipeline. A single method of data flowing through your system. In doing so, we've increased the flexibility of the system. Want to add more clients, no need to do anything. Want to change the technology behind part of the system, as long as the interface remains the same there's no issue. Want to send data elsewhere, no problem, it's all in the raw data persistence layer.
I am developing a web app in Meteor, with Mongo, that will be running on cloud. Each user must belong to a Company.
Each Company can only access it's own data.
Each user can access it's own data and some data shared with other users of the same company.
Imagine 1.000 companies and 100 users per company, it could get very bad in performance and secutiry, if I use 1 Mongodb database for whole app.
So, because Mongo is "Schema-less and Database-less" I think I can define 1.000 dbs, lets say db_0001, db_0002, ... with same name collections, lets say tasks, messages, ..., so the app can be efficient and more secure (same code for every Company and isolation of data).
Also, on hosting side (let's say for example with Digital Ocean), I think its easier to distribute the dbs if the are already atomized.
Is this a good approach? Or should I not worry about it and let the hosting do this job?
Any thoughts are wellcome.
You are currently only looking at one side of the coin. That's fine to start with.
Think about how you are going to be displaying that data and what query does it translate to. Do a thorough due diligence on all the potential query. For example, how often would user/getbyid be called and how often would you have to show a user their info and their relationship with other users. What other meta data would be required beside user info, would you have to perform a join to get that data? or is it stored as an embedded document? What fields are you going to be searching and sorting by most? Which types of data are write heavy and what are read heavy?
Now lets get back to your database shading approach. It's great that you are thinking ahead of time on this front rather than having to rewrite your component later. Data volume/storage does not worry me here. How many concurrent users would be using at application and what are primary use cases should be the first place to look at to think about scale.
Additionally, you need to understand the nature of the business and project growth. Is it like Instragram type of hyper growth? or is it more predictable. A big Mongo cluster can handle thousands of concurrent read/write requests (assuming your design and query are optimized) so that does not bother me. If you want to keep it flexible MongoDB has a sharding mechanism and you can shard on a key and it takes care all the fancy stuff for ya.
MongoDB has eventual consistency (look up MongoDB CAP theorem) if you enable read from secondaries and you have a high volume business critical app you need to be careful because you can be reading out of date result.
As far as hosting is concerned, DO is fine but always have a backup in another region to maintain geographic redundancy so in case if a region goes down (Hello AWS!) you have something to fall back on.
Good luck on your project!
I have a feeling that there must be client-server synchronization patterns out there. But i totally failed to google up one.
Situation is quite simple - server is the central node, that multiple clients connect to and manipulate same data. Data can be split in atoms, in case of conflict, whatever is on server, has priority (to avoid getting user into conflict solving). Partial synchronization is preferred due to potentially large amounts of data.
Are there any patterns / good practices for such situation, or if you don't know of any - what would be your approach?
Below is how i now think to solve it:
Parallel to data, a modification journal will be held, having all transactions timestamped.
When client connects, it receives all changes since last check, in consolidated form (server goes through lists and removes additions that are followed by deletions, merges updates for each atom, etc.).
Et voila, we are up to date.
Alternative would be keeping modification date for each record, and instead of performing data deletes, just mark them as deleted.
Any thoughts?
You should look at how distributed change management works. Look at SVN, CVS and other repositories that manage deltas work.
You have several use cases.
Synchronize changes. Your change-log (or delta history) approach looks good for this. Clients send their deltas to the server; server consolidates and distributes the deltas to the clients. This is the typical case. Databases call this "transaction replication".
Client has lost synchronization. Either through a backup/restore or because of a bug. In this case, the client needs to get the current state from the server without going through the deltas. This is a copy from master to detail, deltas and performance be damned. It's a one-time thing; the client is broken; don't try to optimize this, just implement a reliable copy.
Client is suspicious. In this case, you need to compare client against server to determine if the client is up-to-date and needs any deltas.
You should follow the database (and SVN) design pattern of sequentially numbering every change. That way a client can make a trivial request ("What revision should I have?") before attempting to synchronize. And even then, the query ("All deltas since 2149") is delightfully simple for the client and server to process.
As part of the team, I did quite a lot of projects which involved data syncing, so I should be competent to answer this question.
Data syncing is quite a broad concept and there are way too much to discuss. It covers a range of different approaches with their upsides and downsides. Here is one of the possible classifications based on two perspectives: Synchronous / Asynchronous, Client/Server / Peer-to-Peer. Syncing implementation is severely dependent on these factors, data model complexity, amount of data transferred and stored, and other requirements. So in each particular case the choice should be in favor of the simplest implementation meeting the app requirements.
Based on a review of existing off-the-shelf solutions, we can delineate several major classes of syncing, different in granularity of objects subject to synchronization:
Syncing of a whole document or database is used in cloud-based applications, such as Dropbox, Google Drive or Yandex.Disk. When the user edits and saves a file, the new file version is uploaded to the cloud completely, overwriting the earlier copy. In case of a conflict, both file versions are saved so that the user can choose which version is more relevant.
Syncing of key-value pairs can be used in apps with a simple data structure, where the variables are considered to be atomic, i.e. not divided into logical components. This option is similar to syncing of whole documents, as both the value and the document can be overwritten completely. However, from a user perspective a document is a complex object composed of many parts, but a key-value pair is but a short string or a number. Therefore, in this case we can use a more simple strategy of conflict resolution, considering the value more relevant, if it has been the last to change.
Syncing of data structured as a tree or a graph is used in more sophisticated applications where the amount of data is large enough to send the database in its entirety at every update. In this case, conflicts have to be resolved at the level of individual objects, fields or relationships. We are primarily focused on this option.
So, we grabbed our knowledge into this article which I think might be very useful to everyone interested in the topic => Data Syncing in Core Data Based iOS apps (http://blog.denivip.ru/index.php/2014/04/data-syncing-in-core-data-based-ios-apps/?lang=en)
What you really need is Operational Transform (OT). This can even cater for the conflicts in many cases.
This is still an active area of research, but there are implementations of various OT algorithms around. I've been involved in such research for a number of years now, so let me know if this route interests you and I'll be happy to put you on to relevant resources.
The question is not crystal clear, but I'd look into optimistic locking if I were you.
It can be implemented with a sequence number that the server returns for each record. When a client tries to save the record back, it will include the sequence number it received from the server. If the sequence number matches what's in the database at the time when the update is received, the update is allowed and the sequence number is incremented. If the sequence numbers don't match, the update is disallowed.
I built a system like this for an app about 8 years ago, and I can share a couple ways it has evolved as the app usage has grown.
I started by logging every change (insert, update or delete) from any device into a "history" table. So if, for example, someone changes their phone number in the "contact" table, the system will edit the contact.phone field, and also add a history record with action=update, table=contact, field=phone, record=[contact ID], value=[new phone number]. Then whenever a device syncs, it downloads the history items since the last sync and applies them to its local database. This sounds like the "transaction replication" pattern described above.
One issue is keeping IDs unique when items could be created on different devices. I didn't know about UUIDs when I started this, so I used auto-incrementing IDs and wrote some convoluted code that runs on the central server to check new IDs uploaded from devices, change them to a unique ID if there's a conflict, and tell the source device to change the ID in its local database. Just changing the IDs of new records wasn't that bad, but if I create, for example, a new item in the contact table, then create a new related item in the event table, now I have foreign keys that I also need to check and update.
Eventually I learned that UUIDs could avoid this, but by then my database was getting pretty large and I was afraid a full UUID implementation would create a performance issue. So instead of using full UUIDs, I started using randomly generated, 8 character alphanumeric keys as IDs, and I left my existing code in place to handle conflicts. Somewhere between my current 8-character keys and the 36 characters of a UUID there must be a sweet spot that would eliminate conflicts without unnecessary bloat, but since I already have the conflict resolution code, it hasn't been a priority to experiment with that.
The next problem was that the history table was about 10 times larger than the entire rest of the database. This makes storage expensive, and any maintenance on the history table can be painful. Keeping that entire table allows users to roll back any previous change, but that started to feel like overkill. So I added a routine to the sync process where if the history item that a device last downloaded no longer exists in the history table, the server doesn't give it the recent history items, but instead gives it a file containing all the data for that account. Then I added a cronjob to delete history items older than 90 days. This means users can still roll back changes less than 90 days old, and if they sync at least once every 90 days, the updates will be incremental as before. But if they wait longer than 90 days, the app will replace the entire database.
That change reduced the size of the history table by almost 90%, so now maintaining the history table only makes the database twice as large instead of ten times as large. Another benefit of this system is that syncing could still work without the history table if needed -- like if I needed to do some maintenance that took it offline temporarily. Or I could offer different rollback time periods for accounts at different price points. And if there are more than 90 days of changes to download, the complete file is usually more efficient than the incremental format.
If I were starting over today, I'd skip the ID conflict checking and just aim for a key length that's sufficient to eliminate conflicts, with some kind of error checking just in case. (It looks like YouTube uses 11-character random IDs.) The history table and the combination of incremental downloads for recent updates or a full download when needed has been working well.
For delta (change) sync, you can use pubsub pattern to publish changes back to all subscribed clients, services like pusher can do this.
For database mirror, some web frameworks use a local mini database to sync server side database to local in browser database, partial synchronization is supported. Check meteror.
This page clearly describes mosts scenarios of data synchronization with patterns and example code: Data Synchronization: Patterns, Tools, & Techniques
It is the most comprehensive source I found, considering whole of delta syncs, strategies on how to handle deletions and server-to-client and client-to-server sync. It is a very good starting point, worth a look.
Oracle has two seemingly competing technologies. CDC and DCN.
What are the strengths of each?
When would you use one and not the other?
In general, you would use DCN to notify a client application that the client application needs to clear/ update the application's cache. You would use CDC for ETL processing.
DCN would generally be preferable when you have an OLTP application that needs to be notified immediately about data changes in the database. Since the goal here is to minimize the number of network round-trips and the number of database hits, you'd generally want the application to use DCN for queries which either are mostly static. If a large fraction of the query is changing regularly, you may be better off just refreshing the application's cache on a set frequency rather than running queries constantly to get the changed data (DCN does not contain the changed data, just the ROWID of the row(s) that changed). If the application goes down, I believe DCN allows changes to be lost.
CDC would generally be preferable when you have a DSS application that needs to periodically pull over all the data that changed in a number of tables. CDC can guarantee that the subscriber has received every change to the underlying table(s) which can be important if you are trying to replicate changes to a different database . CDC allows the subscriber to pull the changes at its convenience rather than trying to notify the subscriber that there are changes, so you'd definitely want CDC if you wanted the subscriber to process new data every hour or every day rather than in near real time. (note: DCN also has a guaranteed delivery mode, see comments below. --Mark Harrison)
CDC seems to be much more complex to set up than DCN.
I mean to setup DCN I wrap a select in a start and end DCN block and then write a procedure to be called with a collect of changes. That's it.
CDC requires publishers and subscribers and anyways, seems like more work.