For example, I have an application that does lots of audit trails writing. Lots. It slows things down. If I create a separate service on my Oracle RAC just for audit CRUD, would that help speed things up in my application?
In other words, I point most of the application to the main service listening on my RAC via SCAN. I take the subset of my application, the audit trail data manipulation, and point it to a separate service listening but pointing same schema as the main listener.
As with anything else, it depends. You'd need to be a lot more specific about your application, what services you'd define, your workloads, your goals, etc. Realistically, you'd need to test it in your environment to know for sure.
A separate service could allow you to segregate the workload of one application (the one writing the audit trail) from the workload of other applications by having different sets of nodes in the cluster running each service (under normal operation). That can help ensure that the higher priority application (presumably not writing the audit trail) has a set amount of hardware to handle its workload even if the lower priority thread is running at full throttle. Of course, since all the nodes are sharing the same disk, if the bottleneck is disk I/O, that segregation of workload may not accomplish much.
Separating the services on different sets of nodes can also impact how frequently a particular service is getting blocks from the local node's buffer cache rather than requesting them from the other node and waiting for them to be shipped over the interconnect. It's quite possible that an application that is constantly writing to log tables might end up spending quite a bit of time waiting for a small number of hot blocks (such as the right-most block in the primary key index for the log table) to get shipped back and forth between different nodes. If all the audit records are being written on just one node (or on a smaller number of nodes), that hot block will always be available in the local buffer cache. On the other hand, if writing the audit trail involves querying the database to get information about a change, separating the workload may mean that blocks that were in the local cache (because they were just changed) are now getting shipped across the interconnect, you could end up hurting performance.
Separating the services even if they're running on the same set of nodes may also be useful if you plan on managing them differently. For example, you can configure Oracle Resource Manager rules to give priority to sessions that use one service over another. That can be a more fine-grained way to allocate resources to different workloads than running the services on different nodes. But it can also add more overhead.
Related
I am reading about distributed systems and getting confused with what is really means?
I understand on high level, it means that set of different machines that work together to achieve a single goal.
But this definition seems too broad and loose. I would like to give some points to explain the reasons for my confusion:
I see lot of people referring the micro-services as distributed system where the functionalities like Order, Payment etc are distributed in different services, where as some other refer to multiple instances of Order service which possibly trying to serve customers and possibly use some consensus algorithm to come to consensus on shared state (eg. current Inventory level).
When talking about distributed database, I see lot of people talk about different nodes which possibly use to store/serve a part of user request like records with primary key from 'A-C' in first node 'D-F' in second node etc. On high level it looks like sharding.
When talking about distributed rate limiting. Some refer to multiple application nodes (so called distributed application nodes) using a single rate limiter, some other mention that the rate limiter itself has multiple nodes with a shared cache (like redis).
It feels that people use distributed systems to mention about microservices architecture, horizontal scaling, partitioning (sharding) and anything in between.
I am reading about distributed systems and getting confused with what is really means?
As commented by #ReinhardMänner, the good general term definition of distributed system (DS) is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_computing
A distributed system is a system whose components are located on different networked computers, which communicate and coordinate their actions by passing messages to one another from any system. The components interact with one another in order to achieve a common goal.
Anything that fits above definition can be referred as DS. All mentioned examples such as micro-services, distributed databases, etc. are specific applications of the concept or implementation details.
The statement "X being a distributed system" does not inherently imply any of such details and for each DS must be explicitly specified, eg. distributed database does not necessarily meaning usage of sharding.
I'll also draw from Wikipedia, but I think that the second part of the quote is more important:
A distributed system is a system whose components are located on
different networked computers, which communicate and coordinate their
actions by passing messages to one another from any system. The
components interact with one another in order to achieve a common
goal. Three significant challenges of distributed systems are:
maintaining concurrency of components, overcoming the lack of a global clock, and managing the independent failure of components. When
a component of one system fails, the entire system does not fail.
A system that constantly has to overcome these problems, even if all services are on the same node, or if they communicate via pipes/streams/files, is effectively a distributed system.
Now, trying to clear up your confusion:
Horizontal scaling was there with monoliths before microservices. Horizontal scaling is basically achieved by division of compute resources.
Division of compute requires dealing with synchronization, node failure, multiple clocks. But that is still cheaper than scaling vertically. That's where you might turn to consensus by implementing consensus in the application, or using a dedicated service e.g. Zookeeper, or abusing a DB table for that purpose.
Monoliths present 2 problems that microservices solve: address-space dependency (i.e. someone's component may crash the whole process and thus your component) and long startup times.
While microservices solve these problems, these problems aren't what makes them into a "distributed system". It doesn't matter if the different processes/nodes run the same software (monolith) or not (microservices), it matters that they are different processes that can't easily communicate directly (e.g. via function calls that promise not to fail).
In databases, scaling horizontally is also cheaper than scaling vertically, The two components of horizontal DB scaling are division of compute - effectively, a distributed system - and division of storage - sharding - as you mentioned, e.g. A-C, D-F etc..
Sharding of storage does not define distributed systems - a single compute node can handle multiple storage nodes. It's just that it's much more useful for a database that divides compute to also shard its storage, so you often see them together.
Distributed rate limiting falls under "maintaining concurrency of components". If every node does its own rate limiting, and they don't communicate, then the system-wide rate cannot be enforced. If they wait for each other to coordinate enforcement, they aren't concurrent.
Usually the solution is "approximate" rate limiting where components synchronize "occasionally".
If your components can't easily (= no latency) agree on a global rate limit, that's usually because they can't easily agree on a global anything. In that case, you're effectively dealing with a distributed system, even if all components just threads in the same process.
(that could happen e.g. if you plan to scale out but haven't done so yet, so you don't allow your threads to communicate directly.)
When using stateful services (Reliable Services model), we observe that the baseline memory footprint per process is approximately 250MB of unmanaged memory and approximately 20MB of managed memory (in this scenario, it is simply a Stateful Web API with no other code, created from the Visual Studio templates).
In our application, we use this model, hosting our services in a single Service Fabric Application (with ServicePackageActivationMode.SharedProcess). Our application partitions data by tenants (conceptually a customer) and namespaces within a tenant (a container for a subset of the customer’s data). So, there may be 0 to many tenants, and each tenant may have 0 to many namespaces, all hosted in a single process (with secondary replicas on other nodes).
So, we have one process per node with a baseline memory of approximately 300MB of unmanaged memory and 20MB of managed memory. Of note, we are using .NET 5 (migrating to 6) so none of the unmanaged memory is directly ours, rather it is the Service Fabric overhead.
Our goal is to isolate tenants to minimize noisy neighbors, as well as allow better load balancing, roll out upgrades on a per-customer basis, among other potential benefits. So, we are considering changing our hosting model such that, rather than multi-tenancy as we have now, we want to have a Service Fabric Application per tenant (still using “Shared Process”), thus if we have ‘N’ tenants, each node will have ‘N’ processes, rather than the single process we currently use.
What concerns us is the baseline memory footprint (i.e., the ~250-300MB of unmanaged memory) per process. Even in the multi-tenancy model, each process has a similar baseline memory overhead. We expect to have many tenants hosted within a single cluster. So, if there are 100 tenants, with the application-per-tenant model, we would have an ambient memory overhead of more than 24GB without any customer data being in-process. Testing with “Exclusive Process”, we see similar baseline memory footprints. Even stateless services exhibit a similar baseline memory footprint.
Since we leverage Reliable Collections (RCs), we have not attempted to use a Guest Executable model, nor have we tried Reliable Actors (probably not a good fit anyway since we have I/O going to BLOB storage, along with querying across a subset of instances). Although we are researching alternatives to RCs to potentially decouple from Service Fabric.
My overall question then: Is the baseline memory footprint on a per-process basis just the cost of doing business with Service Fabric? I am curious if others have seen this same memory footprint, as well as if there are any ways to optimize (reduce) the memory.
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
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).