I am using mongodb as a database for my game servers. When I started them, they were bound to just one region, I used the free tier of Mongodb Atlas in that region, India, and it worked perfectly with around 20ms of latency even on high load.
Now when I'm trying to scale up my servers and reach other regions like US-East, the latency jumps up to 500ms.
Is there a way I could open up two mongodb servers on both my India and US instances, which would always be in complete sync with each other, while the game server process would just use localhost to connect to the specific replica. I'm using pyMongo.
The players have no connection with the database, it's the game server process that manages it
Is there a way I could open up two mongodb servers on both my India and US instances, which would always be in complete sync with each other, while the game server process would just use localhost to connect to the specific replica.
Assuming you are using a replica set, I believe the closest you can come to achieving the stated requirement for reads is by:
Performing all writes with the write concern w=(# of nodes in the deployment), if you have two servers then use w=2.
Performing reads with read preference=nearest and read concern=majority.
I say "closest" because I suspect read concern=majority on a secondary could return stale data even with w=(# of nodes in deployment), since I imagine the majority commit point would necessarily lag behind the point when each secondary commits each document. To guarantee that you are reading current data you must read from the primary.
Note that such a setup has (at least) two additional major drawbacks:
If any of the servers becomes unavailable, your application ceases to be able to write any data to the database.
Each write will wait for all servers in the deployment to store it, hence all writes will be slow.
Achieving the same requirement for reads and writes is not physically possible. (You essentially want to be able to write a document in, say, India in 20ms and have it be "instantly" available in US, i.e. be able to retrieve it in US 20 ms later, but it takes a minimum of 500 ms for data to travel from India to US.)
Related
I am currently planning some server infrastructure. I have two servers in different locations. My apps (apis and stuff) are running on both of them. The client connects to the nearest (best connection). In case of failure of one server the other can process the requests. I want to use mongodb for my projects. The first idea is to use a replica set, therefore I can ensure the data is consistent. If one server fails the data is still accessible and the secondary switches to primary. When the app on the primary server wants to use the data, it is fine, but the other server must connect to to the primary server in order to handle data (that would solve the failover, but not the "best connection" problem). In Mongodb there is an option to read data from secondary servers, but then I have to ensure, that the inserts (only possible on primary) are consistent on every secondary. There is also an option for this "writeConcern". Is it possible to somehow specify “writeConcern on specific secondary”? Because If an add a second secondary without the apps on it, "writeConcern" on every secondary would not be necessary. And if I specify a specific value I don't really know on which secondary the data is available, right ?
Summary: I want to reduce the connections between the servers when the api is called.
Please share some thought or Ideas to fix my problem.
Writes can only be done on primaries.
To control which secondary the reads are directed to, you can use max staleness as well as tags.
that the inserts (only possible on primary) are consistent on every secondary.
I don't understand what you mean by this phrase.
If you have two geographically separated datacenters, A and B, it is physically impossible to write data in A and instantly see it in B. You must either wait for the write to propagate or wait for the read to fetch data from the remote node.
To pay the cost at write time, set your write concern to the number of nodes in the deployment (2, in your proposal). To pay the cost at read time, use primary reads.
Note that merely setting write concern equal to the number of nodes doesn't make all nodes have the same data at all times - it just makes your application only consider the write successful when all nodes have received it. The primary can still be ahead of a particular secondary in terms of operations committed.
And, as noted in comments, a two-node replica set will not accept writes unless both members are operational, which is why it is generally not a useful configuration to employ.
Summary: I want to reduce the connections between the servers when the api is called.
This has nothing to do with the rest of the question, and if you really mean this it's a premature optimization.
If what you want is faster network I/O I suggest looking into setting up better connectivity between your application and your database (for example, I imagine AWS would offer pretty good connectivity between their various regions).
I am currently reading up on some distributed systems design patterns. One of the designs patterns when you have to deal with a lot of data (billions of entires or multiple peta bytes) would be to spread it out across multiple servers or storage units.
One of the solutions for this is to use a Consistent hash. This should result in an even spread across all servers in the hash.
The concept is rather simple: we can just add new servers and only the servers in the range would be affected, and if you loose servers the remaining servers in the consistent hash would take over. This is when all servers in the hash have the same data (in memory, disk or database).
My question is how do we handle adding and removing servers from a consistent hash where there are so much data that it can't be stored on a single host. How do they figure out what data to store and what not too?
Example:
Let say that we have 2 machines running, "0" and "1". They are starting to reach 60% of their maximum capacity, so we decide to add an additional machine "2". Now a large part the data on machine 0 has to be migrated to machine 2.
How would we automate so this will happen without downtime and while being reliable.
My own suggested approach would be that the service hosing consistent hash and the machines would have be aware of how to transfer data between each other. When a new machine is added, will the consistent hash service calculate the affected hash ranges. Then inform the affect machine
of the affected hash range and that they need to transfer affected data to machine 2. Once the affected machines are done transferring their data, they would ACK back to the consistent hash service. Once all affected services are done transferring data, the consistent hash service would start sending data to machine 2, and inform the affected machine that they can remove their transferred data now. If we have peta bytes on each server can this process take a long time. We there for need to keep track of what entires where changes during the transfer so we can ensure to sync them after, or we can submit the write/updates to both machine 0 and 2 during the transfer.
My approach would work, but i feel it is a little risky with all the backs and forth, so i would like to hear if there is a better way.
How would we automate so this will happen without downtime and while being reliable?
It depends on the technology used to store your data, but for example in Cassandra, there is no "central" entity that governs the process and it is done like almost everything else; by having nodes gossiping with each other. There is no downtime when a new node joins the cluster (performance might be slightly impacted though).
The process is as follow:
The new node joining the cluster is defined as an empty node without system tables or data.
When a new node joins the cluster using the auto bootstrap feature, it will perform the following operations
- Contact the seed nodes to learn about gossip state.
- Transition to Up and Joining state (to indicate it is joining the cluster; represented by UJ in the nodetool status).
- Contact the seed nodes to ensure schema agreement.
- Calculate the tokens that it will become responsible for.
- Stream replica data associated with the tokens it is responsible for from the former owners.
- Transition to Up and Normal state once streaming is complete (to indicate it is now part of the cluster; represented by UN in the nodetool status).
Taken from https://thelastpickle.com/blog/2017/05/23/auto-bootstrapping-part1.html
So when the joining node is in the Joining State, it is receiving data from other nodes but not ready for reads until the process is complete (Up status).
DataStax also has some material on this https://academy.datastax.com/units/2017-ring-dse-foundations-apache-cassandra?path=developer&resource=ds201-datastax-enterprise-6-foundations-of-apache-cassandra
Does mongodb have an analogous capability to Redis's key timeouts? I need this to "health check" different machines simultaneously feeding data to Mongo.
Each machine is responsible for collecting a different set of data, but if one of them goes down, then I need another one to know about that, and take over the dead machine's tasks (as well as keeping its own capture tasks running). The problem is, how do I know if one machine has gone down?
My idea was to have each "feed machine" constantly (say every second) update a health-document collection with its status as a document with, say, a 5 second timeout. If that document disappears, then that machine has gone down.
Can this be done with Mongo? Or is there another design pattern that does not involve constantly polling for each machine's data stream feeds into Mongo, that would achieve the same thing?
MongoDB has TTL (Time To Live) collections.
For your problem of determining health of a machine I would say coupling that with MongoDB or any datastore would not be a great idea.
You can have a master/orchestrator which receives pings/heartbeats from different machines and then assign tasks accordingly.
We have a data system in which writes and reads can be made in a couple of geographic locations which have high network latency between them (crossing a few continents, but not this slow). We can live with 'last write wins' conflict resolution, especially since edits can't be meaningfully merged.
I'd ideally like to use a distributed system that allows fast, local reads and writes, and copes with the replication and write propagation over the slow connection in the background. Do the datacenter-aware features in e.g. Voldemort or Cassandra deliver this?
It's either this, or we roll our own, probably based on collecting writes using something like
rsync and sorting out the conflict resolution ourselves.
You should be able to get the behavior you're looking for using Voldemort. (I can't speak to Cassandra, but imagine that it's similarly possible using it.)
The key settings in the configuration will be:
replication-factor — This is the total number of times the data is stored. Each put or delete operation must eventually hit this many nodes. A replication factor of n means it can be possible to tolerate up to n - 1 node failures without data loss.
required-reads — The least number of reads that can succeed without throwing an exception.
required-writes — The least number of writes that can succeed without the client getting back an exception.
So for your situation, the replication would be set to whatever number made sense for your redundancy requirements, while both required-reads and required-writes would be set to 1. Reads and writes would return quickly, with a concomitant risk of stale or lost data, and the data would only be replicated to the other nodes afterwards.
I have no experience with Voldemort, so I can only comment on Cassandra.
You can deploy Cassandra to multiple datacenters with an inter-DC latency higher than a few milliseconds (see http://spyced.blogspot.com/2010/04/cassandra-fact-vs-fiction.html).
To ensure fast local reads, you can configure the cluster to replicate your data to a certain number of nodes in each datacenter (see "Network Topology Strategy"). For example, you specify that there should always be two replica in each data center. So even when you lose a node in a data center, you will still be able to read your data locally.
Write requests can be sent to any node in a Cassandra cluster. So for fast writes, your clients would always speak to a local node. The node receiving the request (the "coordinator") will replicate the data to other nodes (in other datacenters) in the background. If nodes are down, the write request will still succeed and the coordinator will replicate the data to the failed nodes at a later time ("hinted handoff").
Conflict resolution is based on a client-supplied timestamp.
If you need more than eventual consistency, Cassandra offers several consistency options (including datacenter-aware options).
I have decided to start developing a little web application in my spare time so I can learn about MongoDB. I was planning to get an Amazon AWS micro instance and start the development and the alpha stage there. However, I stumbled across a question here on Stack Overflow that concerned me:
But for durability, you need to use at least 2 mongodb server
instances as master/slave. Otherwise you can lose the last minute of
your data.
Is that true? Can't I just have my box with everything installed on it (Apache, PHP, MongoDB) and rely on the data being correctly stored? At least, there must be a config option in MongoDB to make it behave reliably even if installed on a single box - isn't there?
The information you have on master/slave setups is outdated. Running single-server MongoDB with journaling is a durable data store, so for use cases where you don't need replica sets or if you're in development stage, then journaling will work well.
However if you're in production, we recommend using replica sets. For the bare minimum set up, you would ideally run three (or more) instances of mongod, a 'primary' which receives reads and writes, a 'secondary' to which the writes from the primary are replicated, and an arbiter, a single instance of mongod that allows a vote to take place should the primary become unavailable. This 'automatic failover' means that, should your primary be unable to receive writes from your application at a given time, the secondary will become the primary and take over receiving data from your app.
You can read more about journaling here and replication here, and you should definitely familiarize yourself with the documentation in general in order to get a better sense of what MongoDB is all about.
Replication provides redundancy and increases data availability. With multiple copies of data on different database servers, replication protects a database from the loss of a single server. Replication also allows you to recover from hardware failure and service interruptions. With additional copies of the data, you can dedicate one to disaster recovery, reporting, or backup.
In some cases, you can use replication to increase read capacity. Clients have the ability to send read and write operations to different servers. You can also maintain copies in different data centers to increase the locality and availability of data for distributed applications.
Replication in MongoDB
A replica set is a group of mongod instances that host the same data set. One mongod, the primary, receives all write operations. All other instances, secondaries, apply operations from the primary so that they have the same data set.
The primary accepts all write operations from clients. Replica set can have only one primary. Because only one member can accept write operations, replica sets provide strict consistency. To support replication, the primary logs all changes to its data sets in its oplog. See primary for more information.