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.
Related
I am using client side partitioning on a 4 node redis setup. The writes and reads are distributed among the nodes. Redis is used as a persistence layer for volatile data as well as a cache by different parts of application. We also have a cassandra deployment for persisting non-volatile data.
On redis we peak at nearly 1k ops/sec (instantaneous_ops_per_sec). The load is expected to increase with time. There are many operations where we query for a non-existent key to check whether data is present for that key.
I want to achieve following things:
Writes should failover to something when a redis node goes down.
There should be a backup for reading the data lost when the redis node went down.
If we add more redis nodes in the future (or a dead node comes back up), reads and writes should be re-distributed consistently.
I am trying to figure out suitable design to handle the above scenario. I have thought of the following options:
Create hot slaves for the existing nodes and swap them as and when a master goes down. This will not address the third point.
Write a Application layer to persist data in both redis and cassandra allowing a lazy load path for reads when a redis node goes down. This approach will have an overhead of writing to two stores.
Which is a better approach? Is there a suitable alternative to the above approaches?
A load of 1k ops/s is far below the capabilities of Redis. You would need to increase by up to two or more orders of magnitude before you come close to overloading it. If you aren't expecting to exceed 50-70,000 ops/second and are not exceeding your available single/0-node memory I really wouldn't bother with sharding your data as it is more effort than it is worth.
That said, I wouldn't do sharding for this client-side. I'd look at something like Twemproxy/Nutcracker to do it do you. This provides a path to a Redis Cluster as well as the ability to scale out connections and proved transparent client-side support for failover scenarios.
To handle failover in the client you would want to set up two instances per slot (in your description a write node) with one shaved to the other. Then you would run a Sentinel Constellation to manage the failover.
Then you would need to have your client code connect to sentinel to get the current master connectivity for each slot. This also means client code which can reconnect to the newly promoted master when a failover occurs. If you have load Balancers available you can place your Redis nodes behind one or more (preferably two with failover) and eliminated client reconnection requirements, but you would then need to implement a sentinel script or monitor to update the load balancer configuration on failover.
For the Sentinel Constellation a standard 3 node setup will work fine. If you do your load balancing with software in nodes you control it would be best to have at least two sentinel nodes on the load Balancers to provide natural connectivity tests.
Given your description I would test out running a single master with multiple read slaves, and instead of hashing in client code, distribute reads to slaves and writes to master. This will provide a much simpler setup and likely less complex code on the client side. Scaling read slaves is easier and simpler, and as you describe it the vast majority if ops will be read requests so it fits your described usage pattern precisely.
You would still need to use Sentinel to manage failover, but that complexity will still exist, resulting in a net decrease in code and code complexity. For a single master, sentinel is almost trivial so setup; the caveats being code to either manage a load balancer or Virtual IP or to handle sentinel discovery in the client code.
You are opening the distributed database Pandora's box here.
My best suggestion is; don't do it, don't implement your own Redis Cluster unless you can afford loosing data and / or you can take some downtime.
If you can afford running on not-yet-production-ready software, my suggestion is to have a look at the official Redis Cluster implementation; if your requirements are low enough for you to kick your own cluster implementation, chances are that you can afford using Redis Cluster directly which has a community behind.
Have you considered looking at different software than Redis? Cassandra,Riak,DynamoDB,Hadoop are great examples of mature distributes databases that would do what you asked out of the box.
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.
I'm in research process for noSQL solution for our company needs.
For now the search narrows to hBase. I've read a lot about architecture, performance etc, but one thing is still uncovered for me.
For example if you have 100 nodes cluster, and one row gets 100.000 simultaneous requests. In this case all the 100.000 requests will hit only one node, where the row is stored? As I understand HBase replication is only for data backup (not for read load balance), and there no any master/slave mechanism (like in MySQL)?
Regarding to 100.000 concurrent requests for single row - I think nobody is good for this currently. Under normal condition it is simply not needed - clients are anyway isolated from DB so access is limited in this case (and probably cached).
Regarding to storage and replication. First, there is at least 2 types of replication and actually it is not HBase. HBase relies on HDFS which is fault tolerant by nature. Read about HBase master and HBase region server role if you need to understand details but in general all things related to replication go to HDFS.
I guess 100,000 concurrent request will not work very well on HBase, however real world scenarios seems to work quite well
yfrog get 10K request per second and eBay chose it for the new version of their product search engine as well as Facebook for their messaging system
You can also take a look at hstack benchmarks on more modest cluster
HBase replication is not only for data backup, also availability. As that does not seem to be the only point you cover with your question here I pointed you to that link where you can find more information. If you have specific questions regarding your schema design you should start in the home page of the Apache hosted project first of all. For the last question mark about master/slave, that URL I sent still applies (And you can ask the HBase developers about it if you are unsure anyway): http://hbase.apache.org/replication.html
Our primary purpose is to use Hadoop for doing analytics. In this use case, we do batch processing, so throughput is more important than latency, meaning that HBase is not necessarily a good fit (although getting closer to real-time analytics does sound appealing). We are playing around with Hive and we like it so far.
Although analytics is the main thing we want to do in the immediate future with Hadoop, we are also looking to potentially migrate parts of our operations to HBase and to serve live traffic out of it. The data that would be stored there is the same data that we use in our analytics, and I wonder if we could just have one system for both live traffic and analytics.
I have read a lot of reports and it seems that most organizations choose to have separate clusters for serving traffic and for analytics. This seems like a reasonable choice for stability purposes, since we plan to have many people writing Hive queries, and badly written queries could potentially compromise the live operations.
Now my question is: how are those two different use cases reconciled (serving live traffic and doing batch analytics)? Do organizations use systems to write all data in two otherwise independent clusters? Or is it possible to do this out of the box with a single cluster in which some of the nodes serve live traffic and others do only analytics?
What I'm thinking is that we could perhaps have all data coming into the nodes that are used for serving live traffic, and let the HDFS replication mechanisms manage the copying of data into nodes that are used for analytics (increasing the replication higher than the default 3 probably makes sense in such scenario). Hadoop can be made aware of special network topologies, and it has functionality to always replicate at least one copy to different racks, so this seems to mesh well with what I'm describing.
The nodes dedicated to live traffic could be set to have zero (or few) map and reduce slots, so that all Hive queries end up being processed by the nodes dedicated to analytics.
The nodes dedicated to analytics would always be a little behind those dedicated to serving live traffic, but that does not seem to be a problem.
Does that kind of solution make sense? I am thinking it could be more simple to have one cluster than two, but would this be significantly riskier? Are there known cases of companies using a HBase cluster to serve live traffic while also running batch analytics jobs on it?
I'd love to get your opinions on this :) !
Thanks.
EDIT: What about Brisk? It's based on Cassandra instead of HBase, but it seems to be made exactly for what I'm describing (hybrid clusters). Has anyone worked with it before? Is it mature?
--
Felix
Your approach has a few problems... even in rack aware mode, if you have more than a few racks I don't see how you can be guaranteed your nodes will be replicated on those nodes. If you lose one of your "live" nodes, then you will be under-replicated for a while and won't have access to that data.
HBase is greedy in terms of resources and I've found it doesn't play well with others (in terms of memory and CPU) in high load situations. You mention, too, that heavy analytics can impact live performance, which is also true.
In my cluster, we use Hadoop quite a bit to preprocess data for ingest into HBase. We do things like enrichment, filtering out records we don't want, transforming, summarization, etc. If you are thinking you want to do something like this, I suggest sending your data to HDFS on your Hadoop cluster first, then offloading it to your HBase cluster.
There is nothing stopping you from having your HBase cluster and Hadoop cluster on the same network backplane. I suggest instead of having hybrid nodes, just dedicate some nodes to your Hadoop cluster and some nodes to your Hbase cluster. The network transfer between the two will be quite snappy.
Just my personal experience so I'm not sure how much of it is relevant. I hope you find it useful and best of luck!
I think this kind of solution might have sense, since MR is mostly CPU intensive and HBASE is a memory hungry beast. What we do need - is to properly arrange resource management. I think it is possible in the following way:
a) CPU. We can define maximum number of MR mappers/reducers per slot and assuming that each mapper is single threaded we can limit CPU consumption of the MR. The rest will go to HBASE.
b) Memory.We can limit memory for mappers and reducers and the rest give to HBASE.
c) I think we can not properly manage HDFS bandwidth sharing, but I do not think it should be a problem for HBASE -since for it disk operations are not on the critical path.