I am involved in a project where they get enough RAM to store the entire database in memory. According to the manager, that is what 10Gen recommended. This is counter intuitive. Is that really the way you want to use Mongodb?
It is not counter intuitive... I find it quite intuitive, actually.
In How much faster is the memory usually than the disk? you can read:
(...) memory is only about 6 times faster when you're doing sequential
access (350 Mvalues/sec for memory compared with 58 Mvalues/sec for
disk); but it's about 100,000 times faster when you're doing random
access.
So if you can fit all your data in RAM, it is quite good because you are going to be really fast reading your data.
Regarding MongoDB, from the FAQ's:
It’s certainly possible to run MongoDB on a machine with a small
amount of free RAM.
MongoDB automatically uses all free memory on the machine as its
cache. System resource monitors show that MongoDB uses a lot of
memory, but its usage is dynamic. If another process suddenly needs
half the server’s RAM, MongoDB will yield cached memory to the other
process.
Technically, the operating system’s virtual memory subsystem manages
MongoDB’s memory. This means that MongoDB will use as much free memory
as it can, swapping to disk as needed. Deployments with enough memory
to fit the application’s working data set in RAM will achieve the best
performance.
The problem is that you usually have much more data than memory available. And then you have to go to disk, and disk I/O is slow. Regarding database performance, avoiding full scan queries is key (much more important when accessing to disk). Therefore, if your data set does not fit in memory, you should aim at having indexes for the vast majority of your access patterns and try to fit those indexes in memory:
If you have created indexes for your queries and your working data set
fits in RAM, MongoDB serves all queries from memory.
It all depends on the size of your database. I am guessing that you said your database was actually quite small, otherwise I cannot see how someone at 10gen gave such advice, I mean not even #Stennie gives such advice (he is 10gen by the way).
Even if your database is small I don't see how the manager recommended that. MongoDB does not do memory management of its own as such it does not "pin" data into pages like memcached does or other memory based databases do.
This means that the paging of mongods data can be quite unpredicatable, a.k.a you will spend more time trying to keep things in RAM than paging in data. This is why it is better to just make sure your working set fits and it can loaded with speed, such things are based upon your hardware and queries.
#Stennies comment pretty much sums up the stance you should be taking with MongoDB.
Related
I read about this topic at
http://docs.mongodb.org/manual/faq/storage/#faq-storage-memory-mapped-files
But didn't understand point .Does it is used to keep query data in physical memory ? How it is related with virtual memory ? Why it is important and how it effect at performance ?
I'll try to explain in a simple way.
MongoDB (and other storage systems) stores data in files. Each database has its own files, created as they are needed. The first file weights 64 MB, the next 128 and so up to 2 GB. Then, new files created weigh 2 GB. Each of these files are logically divided into different blocks, that correspond with one virtual memory block.
When MongoDB needs to access a file or a part of it, loads all virtual blocks corresponding to that file or parts of the files into memory using mmap.On the other hand, mmap is a way for applications to leverage the system cache (linux).
So what really happens when you are doing a query is that MongoDB "tells" the OS to load the part it needs with the data requested, so the next time is requested will be faster. As you can imagine this is a very important feature to boost performance in databases like MongoDB, because accessing RAM is way faster than hard drive.
Another benefit of using mmap is that MongoDB memory will grow as it needs and the system memory is free.
This is a basic question, but very important, and i am not sure to really get the point.
On the official documentation we can read
MongoDB keeps all of the most recently used data in RAM. If you have created indexes for your queries and your working data set fits in RAM, MongoDB serves all queries from memory.
The part i am not sure to understand is
If you have created indexes for your queries and your working data set fits in RAM
what does mean "indexes" here?
For example, if i update a model, then i query it, because i have updated it, it's now in RAM so it will come from the memory, but this is not very clear in my mind.
How can we be sure that datas we query will come from the memory or not? I understand that MongoDB uses the free memory to cache datas about the memory which is free on the moment, but does someone could explain further the global behavior ?
In which case could it be better to use a variable in our node server which store datas than trust the MongoDB cache system?
How do you globally advise to use MongoDB for huge traffic?
Note: This was written back in 2013 when MongoDB was still quite young, it didn't have the features it does today, while this answer still holds true for mmap, it does not for the other storage technologies MongoDB now implements, such as WiredTiger, or Percona.
A good place to start to understand exactly what is an index: http://docs.mongodb.org/manual/core/indexes/
After you have brushed up on that you will udersand why they are so good, however, skipping forward to some of the more intricate questions.
How can we be sure that datas we query will come from the memory or not?
One way is to look at the yields field on any query explain(). This will tell you how many times the reader yielded its lock because data was not in RAM.
Another more indepth way is to look on programs like mongostat and other such programs. These programs will tell you about what page faults (when data needs to be paged into RAM from disk) are happening on your mongod.
I understand that MongoDB uses the free memory to cache datas about the memory which is free on the moment, but does someone could explain further the global behavior ?
This is actually incorrect. It is easier to just say that MongoDB does this but in reality it does not. It is in fact the OS and its own paging algorithms, usually the LRU, that does this for MongoDB. MongoDB does cache index plans for a certain period of time though so that it doesn't have to constantly keep checking and testing for indexes.
In which case could it be better to use a variable in our node server which store datas than trust the MongoDB cache system?
Not sure how you expect that to work...I mean the two do quite different things and if you intend to read your data from MongoDB into your application on startup into that var then I definitely would not recommend it.
Besides OS algorithms for memory management are extremely mature and fast, so it is ok.
How do you globally advise to use MongoDB for huge traffic?
Hmm, this is such a huge question. Really I would recommend you Google a little in this subject but as the documentation states you need to ensure your working set fits into RAM for one.
Here is a good starting point: What does it mean to fit "working set" into RAM for MongoDB?
MongoDB attempts to keep entire collections in memory: it memory-maps each collection page. For everything to be in memory, both the data pages, and the indices that reference them, must be kept in memory.
If MongoDB returns a record, you can rest assured that it is now in memory (whether it was before your query or not).
MongoDB doesn't keep a "cache" of records in the same way that, say, a web browser does. When you commit a change, both the memory and the disk are updated.
Mongo is great when matched to the appropriate use cases. It is very high performance if you have sufficient server memory to cache everything, and declines rapidly past that point. Many, many high-volume websites use MongoDB: it's a good thing that memory is so cheap, now.
For more than a month is my war with mongoDB. Until I lose =] ...
Battle 1. Battle 2.
And now a new problem. Again, not enough memory.
Initially, this was solved by simply increasing the memory at a rate of VPS. Then journal = false. But now I got to the top of your plan and continue to increase the memory is not possible.
For my base are lacking 4 GB of memory.
How should I choose a database for the project, was nowhere written that there are so many mongoDB memory. With about 10 million records in the mongoDB missing 4 GB of memory, when my MySQL database with 10 million easily copes with 1.4 GB of memory.
The problem as I understand it, a large number of index fields. But since I can not log into the database, respectively, can not remove them. They needed me in the early stages of development, now they are not important to me.
Tell me please, can I remove them somehow?
There is a dump of the database is completely whole folder database / data / db
On my PC with 4 GB of memory database does not start on a VPS with 4GB same.
As an alternative, I think to take a test period at some VPS / VDS to run mongo and delete keys.
Do you know a web hosting with a test period and 6 GB of memory?
Or if there is an alternative, could you say what?
The issues has very little to do with the size of your data set. MongoDB uses memory mapped files for its storage engine. As such it'll start swapping in pages of hot data into memory when it can and it does so fairly aggressively (or more accurately, the OS memory management does).
Basically it uses as much memory as is available to it and there's very little you can do to avoid it. All data pages (be it actual data or indexes) that are accessed during operation will be swapped into memory if there is space available.
There are plenty of references to this on the internet and on mongodb.org by the way. Saying it isn't mentioned anywhere isn't really true.
First of all, I apologize for my potentially shallow understanding of NoSQL architecture (and databases in general) so try to bear with me.
I'm thinking of using mongoDB to store resources associated with an UUID. The resources can be things such as large image files (tens of megabytes) so it makes sense to store them as files and store just links in my database along with the associated metadata. There's also the added flexibility of decoupling the actual location of the resource files, so I can use a different third party to store the files if I need to.
Now, one document which describes resources would be about 1kB. At first I except a couple hundred thousands of resource documents which would equal some hundreds of megabytes in database size, easily fitting into server memory. But in the future I might have to scale this into the order of tens of MILLIONS of documents. This would be tens of gigabytes which I can't squeeze into server memory anymore.
Only the index could still fit in memory being around a gigabyte or two. But if I understand correctly, I'd have to read from disk every time I did a lookup on an UUID. Is there a substantial speed benefit from mongoDB over a traditional relational database in such a situation?
BONUS QUESTION: is there an existing, established way of doing what I'm trying to achieve? :)
MongoDB doesn't suddenly become slow the second the entire database no longer fits into physical memory. MongoDB currently uses a storage engine based on memory mapped files. This means data that is accessed often will usually be in memory (OS managed, but assume a LRU scheme or something similar).
As such it may not slow down at all at that point or only slightly, it really depends on your data access patterns. Similar story with indexes, if you (right) balance your index appropriately and if your use case allows it you can have a huge index with only a fraction of it in physical memory and still have very decent performance with the majority of index hits happening in physical memory.
Because you're talking about UUID's this might all be a bit hard to achieve since there's no guarantee that the same limited group of users are generating the vast majority of throughput. In those cases sharding really is the most appropriate way to maintain quality of service.
This would be tens of gigabytes which I can't squeeze into server
memory anymore.
That's why MongoDB gives you sharding to partition your data across multiple mongod instances (or replica sets).
In addition to considering sharding, or maybe even before, you should also try to use covered indexes as much as possible, especially if it fits your Use cases.
This way you do not HAVE to load entire documents into memory. Your indexes can help out.
http://www.mongodb.org/display/DOCS/Retrieving+a+Subset+of+Fields#RetrievingaSubsetofFields-CoveredIndexes
If you have to display your entire document all the time based on the id, then the general rule of thumb is to attempt to keep e working set in memory.
http://blog.boxedice.com/2010/12/13/mongodb-monitoring-keep-in-it-ram/
This is one of the resources that talks about that. There is a video on mongodb's site too that speaks about this.
By attempting to size the ram so that the working set is in memory, and also looking at sharding, you will not have to do this right away, you can always add sharding later. This will improve scalability of your app over time.
Again, these are not absolute statements, these are general guidelines, that you should think through your usage patterns and make sure that they ar relevant to what you are doing.
Personally, I have not had the need to fit everything in ram.
I would like to know if Memcache is recommended when using a NoSQL database like mongoDB.
The concept of using memcache stems from the idea that you have "extra RAM" sitting around somewhere. Both MongoDB and MySQL (and most DBs) will take every meg of RAM that they can get.
In the case of the very common MySQL / Memcache, it is very well documented that using Memcache is more about reducing query load on the server than it is about speeding up queries. A good memcache implementation basically just tries to keep the most common data in memory so that the database server can churn away on bigger stuff.
In fact, it's been my experience that use of memcache generally becomes a reliance on memcache to maintain system performance.
So back to the original question, where do you have extra RAM?
If you have extra RAM on web servers, you may be able to use Memcache. Of course, you could also run Mongo locally on the web server. Just slave the data you need from the master.
If you have extra RAM on other computers, then there's not really a point in using memcache. Just add more nodes to your MongoDB replica set or shard. This is where MongoDB actually shines. Because of sharding / replication, you can add more RAM to Mongo Horizontally to increase performance. With SQL it's very difficult to "just add more servers" because joins don't scale very well. But with Mongo, it's quite possible to simply "add more nodes" to a problem.
MongoDB stores everything in memory anyway and works in a similar vein, being a key-value based system, however I believe MongoDB is more flexible, as it allows for storing BSON objects within themselves.
(Just for clarification, MongoDB uses BSON, a specialised form of JSON, for storing all its data, which includes objects within objects.)
At first no. If you run into performance problems later add a caching layer (memcache). But you won't gain anything if you're going to use Redis for example, as Redis already stores everything in memory.
The answer would depend on your use cases.
In general, accessing RAM is orders of magnitude faster than accessing disk.
Even the fastest SSD drives are about 100 times slower to access than RAM.
Now, I don't know if Mongo has a caching system in place (most likely it does), or what the eviction policy is, but as a programmer i would prefer a cache where i can store/retrieve and delete items at will. Therefore i would prefer using a caching solution even with Mongo.
In summary, it really depends what you are using these solutions for. There is no one answer to cover all possible uses.