We have some Analysis Services tabular (1600) cubes and I know that normally, the data is all stored in memory, but what I can't find the answer to, is what happens to all this data when the server is re-started ? It would appear that there are a load of files on disk for each cube, but it's not entirely obvious what they are. Is that the data as well ?
I know that if you detach an Analysis Service tabular cube and then re-attach it, the data is still there (I don't have to re-process the partitions) so it would suggest that the data is also stored on disk in these files but I can't find anything on the web to prove/disprove this theory, one way or the other.
Does anyone have any ideas ?
Thanks
Yes, data is indeed stored on the disk. Data is simultaneously loaded to memory and stored on disk whenever the model is being processed. When detaching a model, you're simply removing it from memory, keeping the data on disk only. Subsequently attaching a model (or restarting the server), will then load the data from disk into memory.
Data is also compressed on the disk, so the size of the folder where the data is stored, is more or less comparable to the size of the processed model in memory.
Look in your server properties to locate the folder where data is stored:
Related
I know how to do it, but I wonder if it's effective. As I know MongoDB has very efficient clusters and I can flexibly control the collections and the servers they reside on. The only problem is the size of the files and the speed of accessing them through MongoDB.
Should I explore something like Apache Hadoop or if I intelligently cluster MongoDB, will I get similar access speed results?
GridFS is provided for convenience, it is not designed to be the ultimate binary blob storage platform.
MongoDB imposes a limit of 16 MB on each document it stores. This is unlike, for example, many relational databases which permit much larger values to be stored.
Since many applications deal with large binary blobs, MongoDB's solution to this problem is GridFS, which roughly works like this:
For each blob to be inserted, a metadata document is inserted into the metadata collection.
Then, the actual blob is split into 16 MB chunks and uploaded as a sequence of documents into the blob collection.
MongoDB drivers provide helpers for writing and reading the blobs and the metadata.
Thus, on first glance, the problem is solved - the application can store arbitrarily large blobs in a straightforward manner. However, digging deeper, GridFS has the following issues/limitations:
On the server side, documents storing blob chunks aren't stored separately from other documents. As such they compete for cache space with the actual documents. A database which has both content documents and blobs is likely to perform worse than a database that has only content documents.
At the same time, since the blob chunks are stored in the same way as content documents, storing them is generally expensive. For example, S3 is much cheaper than EBS storage, and GridFS would put all data on EBS.
To my knowledge there is no support for parallel writes or parallel reads of the blobs (writing/reading several chunks of the same blob at a time). This can in principle be implemented, either in MongoDB drivers or in an application, but as far as I know this isn't provided out of the box by any driver. This limits I/O performance when the blobs are large.
Similarly, if a read or write fails, the entire blob must be re-read or re-written as opposed to just the missing fragment.
Despite these issues, GridFS may be a fine solution for many use cases:
If the overall data size isn't very large, the negative cache effects are limited.
If most of the blobs fit in a single document, their storage should be quite efficient.
The blobs are backed up and otherwise transfered together with the content documents in the database, improving data consistency and reducing the risk of data loss/inconsistencies.
The good practice is to upload image somewhere (your server or cloud), and then only store image url in MongoDB.
Anyway, I did a little investigating. The short conclusion is: if you need to store user avatars you can use MongoDB, but only if it's a single avatar (You can't store many blobs inside MongoDB) and if you need to store videos or just many and heavy files, then you need something like CephFS.
Why do I think so? The thing is, when I was testing with MongoDB and media files on a slow instance, files weighing up to 10mb(Usually about 1 megabyte) were coming back at up to 3000 milliseconds. That's an unacceptably long time. When there were a lot of files (100+), it could turn into a pain. A real pain.
Ceph is designed just for storing files. To store petabytes of information. That's what's needed.
How do you implement this in a real project? If you use the OOP implementation of MongoDB(Mongoose), you can just add methods to the database objects that access Ceph and do what you need. You can make methods "load file", "delete file", "count quantity" and so on, and then just use it all together as usual. Don't forget to maintain Ceph, add servers as needed, and everything will work perfectly. The files themselves should be accessed only through your web server, not directly, i.e. the web server should throw a request to Ceph when the user needs to give the file and return the response from Ceph to the user.
I hope I helped more than just myself. I'll go add Ceph to my tags. Good luck!
GridFS
Ceph File System
More Ceph
We know that kafka use memory mapped files for it's index files ,however it's log files don't use the memory mapped files technology.
My question is why index files use memory mapped files, however log files don't ?
Implementing both log and index appending with mmap approach will bring data consistency problem. mmap is not 100% guarantee to flush the data from memory to file(assuming the flush reply on OS instead of an explicitly calling on munmap(2)), if the index update get flushed but log data not get flushed successfully due to some reason, the data in the log can not be understood anymore.
BTW, for a append-only data, in the write direction, we only need to care about next-to-write block(buffer), so the huge data should not impact this.
That how many bytes can be mapped into the memory relates to the address space. For example, a 32-bit architecture can only address 4GB or even smaller portions of files. Kafka logs which are often larger enough might have only portions mapped at a time, therefore complicating reading them.
However, index files are sparse which means they are relatively small in size. Mapping them into the memory could speed up the lookup process and that's the primary benefit memory-mapped files offer.
Logs are where the messages are stored, the index files point to the position in the logs.
There is a nice, colorful blog post, explaining what is going on.
Having a fast index to improve read performance is a common optimization in databases where writes are append-only(Almost all LSTM databases do some form of this). Also as others have pointed out:
indexes are sparse, so smaller memory footprint. Even the sparsity of the index is configurable, which is useful as data grows.
Append only write patterns are faster than random seeks(especially true for SSDs), and therefore don't need a lot of attention for optimization.
if mmap log file, as physical memory is limited, it may cause page fault frequently which is a seriously expensive overhead. use sendFile system call is more suitable
Is it good to save an image in database with type BLOB?
or save only the path and copy the image in specific directory?
Which way is the best (I mean good performance for the database and the application) and why?
What are your requirements?
In the vast majority of cases saving the path will be better, simply because of the sheer size of the files compared to the rest of data (bulge the DB by GBs due to image inclusion). Consider adding an indirection, eg. save the path as a name and a reference to a storage resource (eg. a storage_id referencing a row in storages tables) and the path attached to the 'storage'. This way you can easily move files (copy all files, then update the storage path, rather than update 1MM individual paths).
However, if your requirements include consistent backup/restore and/or disaster recoverability, is often better to store images in the DB. Is not easier, nor more convenient, but is simply going to be required. Each DB has its own way of dealing with this problem, eg. in SQL Server you would use a FILESTREAM type which allows remote access via file access API. See FILESTREAM MVC: Download and Upload images from SQL Server for an example.
Also, a somehow dated but none the less interesting paper on the topic: To BLOB or Not to BLOB.
i'm trying to find the best solution to create scalable storage for big files. File size can vary from 1-2 megabytes and up to 500-600 gigabytes.
I have found some information about Hadoop and it's HDFS, but it looks a little bit complicated, because i don't need any Map/Reduce jobs and many other features. Now i'm thinking to use MongoDB and it's GridFS as file storage solution.
And now the questions:
What will happen with gridfs when i try to write few files
concurrently. Will there be any lock for read/write operations? (I will use it only as file storage)
Will files from gridfs be cached in ram and how it will affect read-write perfomance?
Maybe there are some other solutions that can solve my problem more efficiently?
Thanks.
I can only answer for MongoDB here, I will not pretend I know much about HDFS and other such technologies.
The GridFs implementation is totally client side within the driver itself. This means there is no special loading or understanding of the context of file serving within MongoDB itself, effectively MongoDB itself does not even understand they are files ( http://docs.mongodb.org/manual/applications/gridfs/ ).
This means that querying for any part of the files or chunks collection will result in the same process as it would for any other query, whereby it loads the data it needs into your working set ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_set ) which represents a set of data (or all loaded data at that time) required by MongoDB within a given time frame to maintain optimal performance. It does this by paging it into RAM (well technically the OS does).
Another point to take into consideration is that this is driver implemented. This means that the specification can vary, however, I don't think it does. All drivers will allow you to query for a set of documents from the files collection which only houses the files meta data allowing you to later serve the file itself from the chunks collection with a single query.
However that is not the important thing, you want to serve the file itself, including its data; this means that you will be loading the files collection and its subsequent chunks collection into your working set.
With that in mind we have already hit the first snag:
Will files from gridfs be cached in ram and how it will affect read-write perfomance?
The read performance of small files could be awesome, directly from RAM; the writes would be just as good.
For larger files, not so. Most computers will not have 600 GB of RAM and it is likely, quite normal in fact, to house a 600 GB partition of a single file on a single mongod instance. This creates a problem since that file, in order to be served, needs to fit into your working set however it is impossibly bigger than your RAM; at this point you could have page thrashing ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrashing_%28computer_science%29 ) whereby the server is just page faulting 24/7 trying to load the file. The writes here are no better as well.
The only way around this is to starting putting a single file across many shards :\.
Note: one more thing to consider is that the default average size of a chunks "chunk" is 256KB, so that's a lot of documents for a 600GB file. This setting is manipulatable in most drivers.
What will happen with gridfs when i try to write few files concurrently. Will there be any lock for read/write operations? (I will use it only as file storage)
GridFS, being only a specification uses the same locks as on any other collection, both read and write locks on a database level (2.2+) or on a global level (pre-2.2). The two do interfere with each other as well, i.e. how can you ensure a consistent read of a document that is being written to?
That being said the possibility for contention exists based on your scenario specifics, traffic, number of concurrent writes/reads and many other things we have no idea about.
Maybe there are some other solutions that can solve my problem more efficiently?
I personally have found that S3 (as #mluggy said) in reduced redundancy format works best storing a mere portion of meta data about the file within MongoDB, much like using GridFS but without the chunks collection, let S3 handle all that distribution, backup and other stuff for you.
Hopefully I have been clear, hope it helps.
Edit: Unlike what I accidently said, MongoDB does not have a collection level lock, it is a database level lock.
Have you considered saving meta data onto MongoDB and writing actual files to Amazon S3? Both have excellent drivers and the latter is highly redundant, cloud/cdn-ready file storage. I would give it a shot.
I'll start by answering the first two:
There is a write lock when writing in to GridFS, yes. No lock for reads.
The files wont be cached in memory when you query them, but their metadata will.
GridFS may not be the best solution for your problem. Write locks can become something of a pain when you're dealing with this type of situation, particularly for huge files. There are other databases out there that may solve this problem for you. HDFS is a good choice, but as you say, it is very complicated. I would recommend considering a storage mechanism like Riak or Amazon's S3. They're more oriented around being storage for files, and don't end up with major drawbacks. S3 and Riak both have excellent admin facilities, and can handle huge files. Though with Riak, last I knew, you had to do some file chunking to store files over 100mb. Despite that, it generally is a best practice to do some level of chunking for huge file sizes. There are a lot of bad things that can happen when transferring files in to DBs- From network time outs, to buffer overflows, etc. Either way, your solution is going to require a fair amount of tuning for massive file sizes.
I'm building an application which has a "record" feature which records user interaction over time. As time progresses, I fill an array in memory with "state" objects representing the current state of the user input. A typical recording will result in about 5k of these objects.
I then archive this data using NSKeyedArchiver archiveRootObject: toFile:. This works fine, however the file size is very large (3.5 megs or so). My question is this:
Is there any inherent file-size overhead involved in archiving files? Would I be able to save this data using much less disk space if I were to use SQLite, or even roll my own file format? Or is the only way to reduce the disk size of the data going to be to reduce the bit depth of the numbers I'm storing?
If your concern is performance, Core Data gives you more granularity. You can lazy load and save by parts during app execution vs loading/saving the whole 3.5Mb object graph.
If your concern is file size, this is the binary plist format, and this is the SQLite file format. But more important than the overhead, is how complex is the translation between your object graph and the Core Data model.
You may also be interested in this comparison of speed and performance for several file formats: https://github.com/eishay/jvm-serializers/wiki/ Not sure if everything there has an C, C++ or objective-C implementation.
3.5 MB isn't a very large file. However, if your app has to load or save a 3.5 MB file all the time, then using Core Data is a lot smarter as this allows you to save only the data that has changed and retrieve only the parts that you're interested in -- not the whole thing every time.
If storage is the main concern, there would be little difference b/w sqlite and core data.
I had to store UIViewControllers with state in an app, where I ended up not saving the serialized objects but saving only the most specific properties and creating a class which read that data and re-allocated those objects.
The property map was then stored in a csv [admittedly very difficult to manage, but small like anything] and then compressed.