When running a distributed operation over a set of nodes, is it a good idea to pause replication to a db replica (where input data to the operation is read) to ensure that all nodes see the same consistent view of the input data, and resume replication when all nodes finish the computation?
Almost any group communication toolkit (e.g., JGroups) will take care of this on your behalf, you don't need to be concerned about this. Also, if all nodes see the same consistent view of the data, it means the data is also replicated.
Related
Mongo
From this resource I understand why mongo is not A(Highly Available) based on below statement
MongoDB supports a “single master” model. This means you have a master
node and a number of slave nodes. In case the master goes down, one of
the slaves is elected as master. This process happens automatically
but it takes time, usually 10-40 seconds. During this time of new
leader election, your replica set is down and cannot take writes
Is it for the same reason Mongo is said to be Consistent(as write did not happen so returning the latest data in system ) but not Available(not available for writes) ?
Till re-election happens and write operation is in pending, can slave return perform the read operation ? Also does user re-initiate the write operation again once master is selected ?
But i do not understand from another angle why Mongo is highly consistent
As said on Where does mongodb stand in the CAP theorem?,
Mongo is consistent when all reads go to the primary by default.
But that is not true. If under Master/slave model , all reads will go to primary what is the use of slaves then ? It further says If you optionally enable reading from the secondaries then MongoDB becomes eventually consistent where it's possible to read out-of-date results. It means mongo may not be be
consistent with master/slaves(provided i do not configure write to all nodes before return). It does not makes sense to me to say mongo is consistent if all
read and writes go to primary. In that case every other DB also(like cassandra) will be consistent . Is n't it ?
Cassandra
From this resource I understand why Cassandra is A(Highly Available ) based on below statement
Cassandra supports a “multiple master” model. The loss of a single
node does not affect the ability of the cluster to take writes – so
you can achieve 100% uptime for writes
But I do not understand why cassandra is not Consistent ? Is it because node not available for write(as coordinated node is not able to connect) is available for read which can return stale data ?
Go through: MongoDB, Cassandra, and RDBMS in CAP, for better understanding of the topic.
A brief definition of Consistency and availability.
Consistency simply means, when you write a piece of data in a system/distributed system, the same data you should get when you read it from any node of the system.
Availability means, the system should always be available for read/write operation.
Note: Most systems are not, only available or only consistent, they always offer a bit of both
With the above definition let's see where MongoDB and Cassandra fall in CAP.
MongoDB
As you said MongoDB is highly consistent when reads and write go to the same node(the default case). Further, you can choose in MongoDB to read from other secondary nodes instead of reading from only leader/primary.
Now, when you try to read data from secondary, your consistency will completely depend on, how you want to read data:
You could ask data which is up to maximum, say 5 seconds stale or,
You could just say, return data from majority of nodes for your select statement.
Same way when you write from your client into Mongo leader, you can say, a write is successful if the data is replicated to or stored on majority of servers.
Clearly, from above, we can say MongoDb can be highly consistent or eventually consistent based on how you read/write your data.
Now, what about availability? MongoDB is mostly always available, but, the only time when the leader is down, MongoDB can't accept writes, until it figures out the new leader. Hence, not highly available
So, MongoDB is categorized under CP.
What about Cassandra?
In Cassandra, there is no leader and any nodes can accept write, so the Cassandra cluster is always available for writes and reads even if some nodes go down.
What about consistency in Cassandra?
Same as MongoDB Cassandra can be eventually consistent or highly consistent based on how you read/write data.
You can give consistency levels in your read/write operations, For example:
read/write data from one node
read/write data from majority/quorum of nodes and more
Let's say you give a consistency level of one in your read/write operation. So, your write is successful as soon as data is written to one replica. Now, if your read request happens to go to the other replica where the data is not updated yet(could be due to high network latency or any other reason), you will end up reading the old data.
So, Cassandra is highly available but has configurable consistency levels and hence not always consistent.
In conclusion, in their default behavior, MongoDB falls under CP and Cassandra in AP.
Consistency in the CAP paradigm also includes "eventual consistency" which MongoDB supports. In a contrast to ACID systems, the read in CAP systems does not guarantee a safe return.
In simple words, this means that your Master could have an updated value, but if you do read from Slave, it does not necessarily return the updated value, and that it's okay to no have this updated value by design.
The concept of eventual consistency is explained in an excellent answer here.
By architecture, Cassandra is supposed to be consistent; it offers a special implementation of eventual consistency called the 'tunable consistency' which would meant that the client application may choose the method of handling this- it even offers multi data centre consistency support at low levels!
Most issues from row wise inconsistency in Cassandra comes from the fact that Cassandra uses client timestamps to determine which value is the most recent, and not the server side ones, which may be tad bit confusing to understand at first.
I hope this helps!
You have only to understand the "point-in-time": As you only write to mongodb master, even if slave is not updated, it is consistent, as it has all the data generated util the sync moment.
That is not true for cassandra. As cassandra uses a master-less model, there's no garantee that other nodes has all the data. At a certain time, a node can have certain recent data, and not having older data from nodes not yet synced. Cassandra will only be consistent if you stop write to all nodes and put them online. As soon the sync finished you have a consistent data.
I know we can't write to a secondary in MongoDB. But I can't find any technical reason why. In my case, I don't really care if there is a slight delay but write to a secondary might be faster. Please provide some reference if you can. Thanks!!
The reason why you can not write to a secondary is the way replication works:
Secondaries connect to a special collection on the primary, called oplog. This oplog contains operations which were run through the query optimizer. Basically, the oplog is a capped collection, and the secondaries use a tailable cursor to access it's entries and processes it from the oldest to the newest.
When a election takes place because the primary goes down / steps down, the secondary with the most recent oplog entry is elected primary. The secondaries connect to the new primary, query for the oplog entries they haven't processed yet and the cluster is in sync.
This procedure is pretty straight forward. Now imagine one could write to a secondary. All nodes in the cluster would have to have a tailable cursor on all other nodes of the cluster, and maintaining a consistent state in case of one machine failing becomes a very complicated and in case of a failure even race condition dependent thing. Effectively, there could be no guarantee even for eventual consistency any more. It would be a more or less a gamble.
That being said: A replica set is not for load balancing. A replica sets purpose is to enhance the availability and durability of the data. Because reading from a secondary is a non-risky thing, MongoDB made it possible, according to their dogma of offering the maximum of possible features without compromising scalability (which would be severely hampered if one could write to secondaries).
But MongoDB does provide a load balancing feature: sharding. Choosing the right shard key, you can distribute read and write load over (almost) as many shards as you want. Not to mention that you can provide a lot more of the precious RAM for a reasonable price when sharding.
There is a one liner answer:
Multi-master replication is a hairball.
If you was allowed to write to secondaries MongoDB would have to use milti-master replication to ge this working: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-master_replication where essentially evey node copies to each other the OPs (operations) they have received and somehow do it without losing data.
This form of replication has many obsticles to overcome.
One would be throughput; remember that OPs need to transfer across the entire network so it is possible you might actually lose throughput while adding consistentcy problems. So getting better throughput would be a problem. It is much having a secondary, taking all of the primaries OPs and then its own for replication outbound and then asking it to do yet another job.
Adding consistentcy over a distributed set like this would also be hazardous, one main question that bugs MongoDB when asking if a member is down or is: "Is it really down or just unavailable?". It is almost impossible to ensure true consistentcy in a distributed set like this, at the very least tricky.
Those are just two problems immediately.
Essentially, to sum up, MongoDB does not yet possess mlti-master replication. It could in the future but I would not be jumping for joy if it does, I will most likely ignore such a feature, normal replication and sharding in both ACID and non-ACID databases causes enough blood pressure.
Here is quote from cassandra documentation about writes (LINK)
If all replicas for the affected row key are down, it is still
possible for a write to succeed if using a write consistency level of
ANY. Under this scenario, the hint and written data are stored on the
coordinator node, but will not be available to reads until the hint
gets written to the actual replicas that own the row. The ANY
consistency level provides absolute write availability at the cost of
consistency, as there is no guarantee as to when written data will be
available to reads (depending how long the replicas are down). Using
the ANY consistency level can also potentially increase load on the
cluster, as coordinator nodes must temporarily store extra rows
whenever a replica is not available to accept a write.
My question is: is writing to cassandra slower if we use consistency level of ANY than writes when we use consistency level of ONE ?
Hints are generated when appropriate replica nodes are inaccessible at write time. Write requests are then serialized locally on the request coordinator node. Once a valid replica node becomes available and the coordinator node learns of it, the request is passed along to the newly available replica.
With that background, there are two write-time scenarios to consider:
1) At least one replica is up for the affected row. In this case, there is no difference between consistency levels of ANY and ONE. The write just goes to the replica(s), and hinted handoff is not triggered. No performance difference.
2) All replicas are down for the affected row. This is where hints enter the picture. With consistency ANY there is extra work to be done on the coordinator node at request time, as the hint is written to a local system table for later replay. With consistency ONE, you would simply get a refused write in the same circumstances. ONE will expose write failures to the client, and will be faster than ANY.
Essentially, the tradeoff is refusing requests vs. pushing work onto remaining nodes, but only when nodes responsible for storing that row are down.
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 am working on a project which has some important data in it. This means we cannot to lose any of it if the light or server goes down. We are using MongoDB for the database. I'd like to be sure that my data is in the database after the insert and rollback the whole batch if one element was not inserted. I know it is the philosophy behind Mongo that we do not need transactions but how can I make sure that my data is really safely stored after insert rather than sent to some "black hole".
Should I make a search?
Should I use some specific mongoDB commands?
Should I use sharding even if one server is enough for satisfying
the speed and by the way it doesn't guarantee anything if the light
goes down?
What is the best solution?
Your best bet is to use Write Concerns - these allow you to tell MongoDB how important a piece of data is. The quickest Write Concern is also the least safe - the data is not flushed to disk until the next scheduled flush. The safest will confirm that the data has been written to disk on a number of machines before returning.
The write concern you are looking for is FSYNC_SAFE (at least that is what it is called from the point of view of the Java driver) or REPLICAS_SAFE which confirms that your data has been replicated.
Bear in mind that MongoDB does not have transactions in the traditional sense - your rollback will have to be rolled by hand as you can't tell the Mongo database to do this for you.
The other thing you need to do is either use the relatively new --journal option (which uses a Write Ahead Log), or use replica sets to share your data across many machines in order to maximise data integrity in the event of a crash/power loss.
Sharding is not so much a protection against hardware failure as a method for sharing the load when dealing with particularly large datasets - sharding shouldn't be confused with replica sets which is a way of writing data to more than one disk on more than one machine.
Therefore, if your data is valuable enough, you should definitely be using replica sets, perhaps even siting slaves in other data centres/availability zones/racks/etc in order to provide the resilience you require.
There is/will be (can't remember offhand whether this has been implemented yet) a way to specify the priority of individual nodes in a replica set such that if the master goes down the new master that is elected is one in the same data centre if such a machine is available (ie to stop a slave on the other side of the country from becoming master unless it really is the only other option).
I received a really nice answer from a person called GVP on google groups. I will quote it(basically it adds up to Rich's answer):
I'd like to be sure that my data is in the database after the
insert and rollback the whole batch if one element was not inserted.
This is a complex topic and there are several trade-offs you have to
consider here.
Should I use sharding?
Sharding is for scaling writes. For data safety, you want to look a
replica sets.
Should I use some specific mongoDB commands?
First thing to consider is "safe" mode or "getLastError()" as
indicated by Andreas. If you issue a "safe" write, you know that the
database has received the insert and applied the write. However,
MongoDB only flushes to disk every 60 seconds, so the server can fail
without the data on disk.
Second thing to consider is "journaling"
(v1.8+). With journaling turned on, data is flushed to the journal
every 100ms. So you have a smaller window of time before failure. The
drivers have an "fsync" option (check that name) that goes one step
further than "safe", it waits for acknowledgement that the data has
be flushed to the disk (i.e. the journal file). However, this only
covers one server. What happens if the hard drive on the server just
dies? Well you need a second copy.
Third thing to consider is
replication. The drivers support a "W" parameter that says "replicate
this data to N nodes" before returning. If the write does not reach
"N" nodes before a certain timeout, then the write fails (exception
is thrown). However, you have to configure "W" correctly based on the
number of nodes in your replica set. Again, because a hard drive
could fail, even with journaling, you'll want to look at replication.
Then there's replication across data centers which is too long to get
into here. The last thing to consider is your requirement to "roll
back". From my understanding, MongoDB does not have this "roll back"
capacity. If you're doing a batch insert the best you'll get is an
indication of which elements failed.
Here's a link to the PHP driver on this one: http://it.php.net/manual/en/mongocollection.batchinsert.php You'll have to check the details on replication and the W parameter. I believe the same limitations apply here.