I creating a database in Filemaker, the database is about 1GB and includes around 500 photos.
Filemaker maker server is having performance issues, its crashes and takes it’s time when searching though the database. My IT department recommended to raise the cache memory.
I raised the memory 252MB but it's still struggling to give a consistent performance. The database shows now peaks in the CPU.
What can cause this problem?
Verify at FileMaker.com that your server meets the minimum requirements for your version.
For starters:
Increase the cache to 50% of the total memory available to FileMaker server.
Verify that the hard disk is unfragmented and has plenty of free space.
FM Server should be extremely stable.
FMS only does two things:
reads data from the disk and sends it to the network
takes data from the network and writes it to the disk
Performance bottlenecks are always disk and network. FMS is relatively easy on CPU and RAM unless Web Direct is being used.
Things to check:
Are users connecting through ethernet or wifi? (Wifi is slow and unreliable.)
Is FMS running in a virtual machine?
Is the machine running a supported operating system?
Is the database using Web Direct? (Use a 2-machine deployment for web direct.)
Is there anything else running on the machine? (Disable virus and indexing.)
Make sure users are accessing the live databases through FMP client and not through file sharing.
How are the database being backed up? NEVER let anything other than FMS see the live files. Only let OS-level backup processes see backup copies, never the live files.
Make sure all the energy saving options on the server are DISABLED. You do NOT want the CPU or disks sleeping or powering down.
Put the server onto an uninterruptible power supply (UPS). Bad power could be causing problems.
Related
We have a production system which is an ASP.NET Web API (classic, not .NET Core) application published to Azure. Data storage is Azure SQL Database and we use Entity Framework to access the data. API has a medium load, 10-60 requests per second and upper_90 latency is 100-200 ms which is a target latency is our case. Some time ago we noticed that approximately every 20-30 minutes our services stalls and latency jumps to approximately 5-10 sec. All requests start to be slow for about a minute and then the system recovers by itself. Same time no requests are being dropped, they all just take longer to execute. for a short period of time (usually 1 minute).
We start to see the following picture at our HTTP requests telemetry (Azure):
We can also see a correlation to with our Azure SQL Database metrics, such as DTU (drop) and connections (increase):
We've analyzed the server and didn't see any correlation with the host (we have just one host) CPU/Memory usage, it's stable at 20-30% CPU usage level and 50% memory usage.
We also have an alternative source of telemetry which shows the same behavior. Our telemetry measures API latency and database metrics such as active connection count and pooled connection count (ADO.NET Connection Pool):
What is interesting, that every system stall is accompanied by a pooled connection quantity raise. And our tests show, the more connection pooled, the longer you spend waiting on a new connection from that pool to execute your next database operation. We analyzed a few suggestions but were unable to prove or disprove any of them:
ADO.NET connection leak (all our db access happens in a using statement with proper connection disposal/return to pool)
Socket/Port Exhaustion - where unable to properly track telemetry on that metric
CPU/Memory bottleneck - charts shows there is none
DTU (database units) bottleneck - charts shows there is none
As of now we are trying to identify the possible culprit of this behavior. Unfortunately, we cannot identify the changes which led to it becuase of missing telemetry, so now the only way to deal with the issue is to properly diagnose it. And, of course, we can only reproduce it in production, under permanent load (even when load is not high like 10 requests a second).
What are the possible causes for this behavior and what is the proper way to diagnose and troubleshoot it?
There can be several possible reasons:
The problem could be in your application code, create a staging environment and re-run your test with profiler tool telemetry (i.e. using YourKit .NET Profiler) - this will allow you to detect the heaviest methods, largest objects, slowest DB queries, etc.Also do a load test on your API with JMeter.
I would recommend you to try Kudu Process API to look at the list of currently running processes, and get more info about them list their CPU time.
The article for how to monitor CPU using in Azure App service are shown below:
https://azure.microsoft.com/en-in/documentation/articles/web-sites-monitor/
https://azure.microsoft.com/en-in/documentation/articles/app-insights-web-monitor-performance/
We ended up separating a few web apps hosted at a single App Service Plan. Even though the metrics were not showing us any bottle neck with the CPU on the app, there are other apps which cause CPU usage spikes and as a result Connection Pool Queue growth with huge Latency spikes.
When we checked the App Service Plan usage and compared it to the Database plan usage, it became clear that the bottleneck is in the App Service Plan. It's still hard to explain while CPU bottleneck causes uneven latency spikes but we decided to separate the most loaded web app to a separate plan and deal with it in isolation. After the separation the app behave normally, no CPU or Latency spikes and it look very stable (same picture as between spikes):
We will continue to analyze the other apps and eventually will find the culprit but at this point the mission critical web app is in isolation and very stable. The lesson here is to monitor not only Web App resources usage but also a hosting App Service Plan which could have other apps consuming resources (CPU, Memory)
So I am interested in server PCs and I want to buy one, and I will choose very powerful. But I don't know how to establish the hard disk to be connected to the internet. I want other people to see it when they write it's domain in the search. I am just searching for advice.
I went back over your question and this thread and this is what I recommend. You are looking to create a hosting environment for others from what I am understanding. Regardless the platform you select (linux or windows) having a beefy machine is going to be key to this. I would recommend at a minimum for hardware the following specifications. I recommend building a dedicated server with multiple Quad Core processors, 32 GB RAM, 2 or more TB Disk, with provision for backups. If you call say Dell or one of the other big server providers, they can custom-create a build for you that will accommodate your needs. That configuration would be a start; your final build may be beefier according to your needs and budget.
I have my RHEL linux server(VM) running a 4core processor and 8GB ram running the below applications
- an Apache Karaf container
- an Apache tomcat server
- an ActiveMQ server
- and the mongod server(either primary of secondary).
Often I see that mongo consumes nearly 80% of cpu. Now I see that my cpu and memory is overshooting most of the time and this has caused me to doubt whether my hardware config is too low for running these many components.
Please let me know if it is ok to run mongo like this on a shared server..
The question is to broad and the answer depends on too many variables, but I'll try to give you overall sense of it.
Can you use all these services together on the same machine at a minimum load? - for sure. It's not clear where other shards reside though, but it will work either way. You didn't provide your HDD specs which is quite important for a DB server, but again it will work at a minimum load.
Can you use this setup under heavy load - not the best idea. Perhaps it's better to have separate servers handling these services.
Monitor overall server load like: CPU, memory, IO. Check mongo logs for slow queries. If your queries supposed to run fast and they don't, you'll need more hardware.
Nobody would be really able to tell you how much load a specific server configuration can handle. You need at least 512Mb RAM and 1 CPU to get going these days but very soon you hit the limits. It all depends on how many users you have, what kinds of queries they run and how much data they cover.
Can you run MongoDB along other applications on a single server? Well it would appear that if you are having memory issues or CPU issues in your current configuration then you will likely need to address something. But "Can You?", well if it is not going to affect you then of course you can.
Should you, do this? Most people would firmly agree that you should not, and that would also stand for most of the other applications you are running on the one machine.
There are various reasons, process isolation, resource allocation, security, and far too many for a short topic response to go into why you should not have this kind of configuration. And certainly where it becomes a problem you should be addressing the issue by seeking a new configuration.
For Mongo alone, most people would not think twice about running their SQL database on dedicated hardware. The choice for Mongo should likely be no different.
Have also suggested this be moved to ServerFault, as it is not a programming question suited to stack overflow.
So, I have a what I call huge mongo database which is about 30Gb (about 30 millions documents). I tried to run mongod on the server shared with another application and it was completely slowed down. So I have to look for a dedicated server but have no idea how much RAM do I need.
I understand that I probably need to have amount of RAM enough to put all indexes there. But, if I'm correct, it would be about 13Gb of RAM which makes the price for the server very-very expensive (my app isn't making any money yet).
I tried to look into mongoHQ, but their cheapest dedicated plan is $600/month.
Any ideas? Is it really that expensive to host heavy mongo databases like that?
Build your own server and colocate it instead of renting someone's server. You have full control over the hardware, higher startup costs, but lower long-term costs. You are also liable for hardware malfunctions, so watch out for that.
My company is hosting a few separate, but related, moderately hit, web sites. Accordingly, a production database server, staging database server, production web server, staging web server, etc are needed. My question is, should we invest in physically separate servers for each of our needs, or should we put that money together and invest in a much higher end server and virtualize all of the aforementioned servers? Which route would you guys decide on, and why?
That depends on a lot of things, here are the main considerations.
If you have a lot of servers with low to moderate usage, virtualization should generally save you money on hardware, power, and floorspace. There is a tipping point, however, based on the overhead of the VM layer itself. Honestly, you will have to experiment to find the right cost/performance balance on this. I am sure the VM vendors would be happy to help you with the math.
The downside is that virtualization creates a single point of failure. If that box fails, you have downtime for all of your servers. Having them separate makes it far less likely for everything to take a dive at once.
You certainly want physical separation between the development and the production servers. You shouldn't ever have to worry that something you do in dev could bring down the machine on which production is hosted. And, there are some problems in development that really require either a hard reset of the physical machine or a ludicrous work-around to avoid a hard reset.
As for production web server and production database, you're not really introducing any new points of failure by virtualizing them on the same machine, particularly if you can colocate a static version of the site on another server. For any modern web site of even moderate complexity, database failure is web site failure anyway.
From my experience, for low or moderate usage a VM is the way to go - if you get just one very powerful server instead on several moderately powerful servers you save money, power and space and make the application faster at the same time because it's running on faster hardware.
A VM also have same another nice advantages, if the server hardware fails you can load the same VM on different physical hardware and continue running like nothing happened (you do have full backups, don't you?) and you can take a copy of the actual production server and run it in isolation on a development machine to debug those annoying bug that only appear in production.
But I would put the development (and maybe testing) servers on a different physical machine than production, you need to make sure no matter what stupid mistake you made in development it wouldn't take down the production server.