I have two shards on three machines (using mongodb 1.8.2):
nodeI including: shard1(primary) and shard2(primary)
nodeII including: shard1(secondary) and shard2(secondary)
nodeIII including: shard1(arbiter) and shard2 (arbiter)
NodeII load is getting very high(CPU and IO), and NodeI is high as well, but a little better than nodeII.
In my java client I designated code to only query NodeII, while NodeI is just used for writing.
I am planning to convert nodeIII from arbiter to secondary to share the read load on NodeII.
Do you think this is a good idea and if I do this, what should I consider, or do you have other suggestions to lower the load?
As long as the arbiter hardware has similar specifications to your secondary, the approach you are suggesting seems reasonable as it will distribute the secondary reads. Usually arbiters have very low hardware specs or are on shared hardware, but I am assuming that this is not the case in your configuration.
If you have an odd number of servers in the replica set you will no longer need an arbiter.
You may want to look into Read Preference here, in particular you might be interested in specifying tag sets to select a secondary.
Reading from a secondary does not necessarily "distribute" the load as you might expect. Without getting to the root of your performance problems, you may just be setting up for more challenges.
In particular, adding a secondary to your existing servers will:
increase the I/O load on the server where you add the secondary (you are now replicating & writing a full extra copy of the data)
provide more contention for reading from the server the secondary is syncing from
potentially cause that secondary to lag behind the primary during heavy read activity (which may be of concern if you are expecting strong consistency).
You should also consider what happens in the case of failure. If your servers are struggling under the current load, things will probably dramatically melt down if any one of your physical servers has problems and all the traffic ends up hitting a single server.
Ideally you should run mongostat or similar monitoring tools to get a better understanding of the performance characteristics of your servers and what might be contributing to the load (memory pressure, lock %, I/O, network, ..). It would be helpful if you could post a sampling of mongostat output to PasteBin or similar.
You should also review your common queries with explain() to understand index usage, and check if they require access to all shards or are being directed to a specific one.
If all 3 servers are the same hardware spec, as a short term improvement I would consider:
Removing the arbiters and replace them with secondary nodes. This will provide extra data redundancy in the event one of your servers fails and help prevent all of the load from landing on one server.
Stepping down the primary on NodeI, so that NodeI and NodeII each have a primary and secondary (rather than the two primaries on NodeI and two secondaries on NodeII). The primary and secondary servers have different write characteristics so this may balance the load better.
Checking your shard key(s) and common queries to confirm they will reasonably balance reads and writes. Potential problems including a "hot spot" where all writes to a collection hit a single shard .. or queries which hit all shards to get a result.
Testing the change in performance if you don't read from the secondaries. It may seem counter-intuitive, but reading from secondaries may actually be causing you other issues depending on the nature of your queries.
Lastly, you mention using 1.8.2. There are significant performance and locking/yielding improvements in MongoDB 2.0 and 2.2, as well as other bug fixes. It would be worth testing an upgrade in your development environment as this may address some of your issues.
Related
We are currently hosting the MongoDB using its official docker image in ec2, for our production environment, its 32gb memory server dedicated to just this service.
How can using replica sets help us in the improvement of the performance of our MongoDB, we are currently facing that the response for queries is getting slower day by day.
Are there any measures through which we can determine that investing in the replica set will provide worthy benefits as well and will not be premature optimization.
MongoDB replication is a high availability solution (see note at the end of the post for more details on Replication). Replication is not a performance improvement solution.
MongoDB query performance depends upon various factors: size of collection, size of document, database design, query definition and indexes. Inadequate hardware (memory, hard drive, cpu and network) can affect the query performance. The number of operations at a given time can also affect the performance.
For faster query performance the main consideration is using indexes. Indexes affect directly the query filter and sort operations. To find if your query is performing optimally and using the proper indexes generate a query plan using the explainwith "executionStats" mode; study the plan. Explain can be run on MongoDB find, update, delete and aggregation queries. All these queries can benefit from indexes. See Query Optimization.
Adding capabilities to the existing hardware is known as vertical scaling; and replication is not vertical scaling.
Replication:
This is configured as a replica-set - a primary node and multiple secondary nodes. The primary is the main point of contact for application - all writes happen on the primary, (and reads, by default). The data written to the primary is replicated to the secondaries. This way data redundancy is accomplished. When the primary goes down one of the secondaries takes over as primary and keep the system running via a failover process. Data durability, high availability, redundancy and failover are the man concepts with replication. In MongoDB a replica-set cluster can have up to fifty nodes.
It is recommended to use replica-set in production due to HA functionality.
As a result of source limits on one hand and the need of HA in production on the other hand, I would suggest you to create a minimal replica-set which will consist of Primary, Secondary and an Arbiter (an arbiter does not contain any data and is very low memory consumer).
Also, Writes typically effect your memory performance much more than reads. In order to achieve better write performance I would advice you to create more shards (the more masters you have, the more writes you can handle at the same time).
However, I'm not sure what case your mongo's performance to slow so fast. I think you should:
Check what is most effect your production's performance (complicated queries or hard writes).
Change your read preference to "nearest".
Consider to disable Read Concern "majority" (remember that by default there is a write "majority" concern. Members should be up to date).
Check for a better index.
And of curse create a replica-set!
Good Luck! :P
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.
Everywhere I look, I see that MongoDB is CP.
But when I dig in I see it is eventually consistent.
Is it CP when you use safe=true? If so, does that mean that when I write with safe=true, all replicas will be updated before getting the result?
MongoDB is strongly consistent by default - if you do a write and then do a read, assuming the write was successful you will always be able to read the result of the write you just read. This is because MongoDB is a single-master system and all reads go to the primary by default. If you optionally enable reading from the secondaries then MongoDB becomes eventually consistent where it's possible to read out-of-date results.
MongoDB also gets high-availability through automatic failover in replica sets: http://www.mongodb.org/display/DOCS/Replica+Sets
I agree with Luccas post. You can't just say that MongoDB is CP/AP/CA, because it actually is a trade-off between C, A and P, depending on both database/driver configuration and type of disaster: here's a visual recap, and below a more detailed explanation.
Scenario
Main Focus
Description
No partition
CA
The system is available and provides strong consistency
partition, majority connected
AP
Not synchronized writes from the old primary are ignored
partition, majority not connected
CP
only read access is provided to avoid separated and inconsistent systems
Consistency:
MongoDB is strongly consistent when you use a single connection or the correct Write/Read Concern Level (Which will cost you execution speed). As soon as you don't meet those conditions (especially when you are reading from a secondary-replica) MongoDB becomes Eventually Consistent.
Availability:
MongoDB gets high availability through Replica-Sets. As soon as the primary goes down or gets unavailable else, then the secondaries will determine a new primary to become available again. There is an disadvantage to this: Every write that was performed by the old primary, but not synchronized to the secondaries will be rolled back and saved to a rollback-file, as soon as it reconnects to the set(the old primary is a secondary now). So in this case some consistency is sacrificed for the sake of availability.
Partition Tolerance:
Through the use of said Replica-Sets MongoDB also achieves the partition tolerance: As long as more than half of the servers of a Replica-Set is connected to each other, a new primary can be chosen. Why? To ensure two separated networks can not both choose a new primary. When not enough secondaries are connected to each other you can still read from them (but consistency is not ensured), but not write. The set is practically unavailable for the sake of consistency.
As a brilliant new article showed up and also some awesome experiments by Kyle in this field, you should be careful when labeling MongoDB, and other databases, as C or A.
Of course CAP helps to track down without much words what the database prevails about it, but people often forget that C in CAP means atomic consistency (linearizability), for example. And this caused me lots of pain to understand when trying to classify. So, besides MongoDB give strong consistency, that doesn't mean that is C. In this way, if one make this classifications, I recommend to also give more depth in how it actually works to not leave doubts.
Yes, it is CP when using safe=true. This simply means, the data made it to the masters disk.
If you want to make sure it also arrived on some replica, look into the 'w=N' parameter where N is the number of replicas the data has to be saved on.
see this and this for more information.
MongoDB selects Consistency over Availability whenever there is a Partition. What it means is that when there's a partition(P) it chooses Consistency(C) over Availability(A).
To understand this, Let's understand how MongoDB does replica set works. A Replica Set has a single Primary node. The only "safe" way to commit data is to write to that node and then wait for that data to commit to a majority of nodes in the set. (you will see that flag for w=majority when sending writes)
Partition can occur in two scenarios as follows :
When Primary node goes down: system becomes unavailable until a new
primary is selected.
When Primary node looses connection from too many
Secondary nodes: system becomes unavailable. Other secondaries will try to
elect a new Primary and current primary will step down.
Basically, whenever a partition happens and MongoDB needs to decide what to do, it will choose Consistency over Availability. It will stop accepting writes to the system until it believes that it can safely complete those writes.
Mongodb never allows write to secondary. It allows optional reads from secondary but not writes. So if your primary goes down, you can't write till a secondary becomes primary again. That is how, you sacrifice High Availability in CAP theorem. By keeping your reads only from primary you can have strong consistency.
I'm not sure about P for Mongo. Imagine situation:
Your replica gets split into two partitions.
Writes continue to both sides as new masters were elected
Partition is resolved - all servers are now connected again
What happens is that new master is elected - the one that has highest oplog, but the data from the other master gets reverted to the common state before partition and it is dumped to a file for manual recovery
all secondaries catch up with the new master
The problem here is that the dump file size is limited and if you had a partition for a long time you can loose your data forever.
You can say that it's unlikely to happen - yes, unless in the cloud where it is more common than one may think.
This example is why I would be very careful before assigning any letter to any database. There's so many scenarios and implementations are not perfect.
If anyone knows if this scenario has been addressed in later releases of Mongo please comment! (I haven't been following everything that was happening for some time..)
Mongodb gives up availability. When we talk about availability in the context of the CAP theorem, it is about avoiding single points of failure that can go down. In mongodb. there is a primary router host. and if that goes down,there is gonna be some downtime in the time that it takes for it to elect a new replacement server to take its place. In practical, that is gonna happen very qucikly. we do have a couple of hot standbys sitting there ready to go. So as soon as the system detects that primary routing host went down, it is gonna switch over to a new one pretty much right away. Technically speaking it is still single point of failure. There is still a chance of downtime when that happens.
There is a config server, that is the primary and we have an app server, that is primary at any given time. even though we have multiple backups, there is gonna be a brief period of downtime if any of those servers go down. the system has to first detect that there was an outage and then remaining servers need to reelect a new primary host to take its place. that might take a few seconds and this is enough to say that mongodb is trading off the availability
I have a Mongo cluster that backs an application that I use in production. It's very important to my business and clustered across a number of boxes to optimize for speed and redundancy. I'd like to make the data in said cluster available for running analytical queries and enqueued tasks, but I definitely don't want these to harm production performance. Is it possible to just mirror all of my data against a single box I throw into the cluster with some special tag that I can then use for analytics? It's fine if it's slow. I just want it to be cheap and not to affect production read/write speeds.
Since you're talking about redundancy, I assume you have a replica set.
In that case you can use a hidden replica set member to perform the calculations you need.
Just keep in mind that the member count must be odd. If you add a node you might need to also add an arbiter. Or maybe you can just hide one of the already existing members.
If you are looking for a way to increase querying speed having a lot of data, you have to look might look into sharding with mongodb. Basically what it does is dividing your big amount of data into small shards and stores them on different machines.
If you are looking to increase redundancy (in order to make backup or to be able to do offline processing without touching primary servers) you have to look into replication with mongodb. If you are doing replication, keep in mind that the data on the replicas will be always lagging behind a primary (nothing to worry about, but just need to know this fact to decide can you allow read from the replicas). As it was pointed by Rafa, hidden replica sets are well suited for backup and offline data processing. They will still be able to get all the data from primary (with small lag), but are invisible to secondary reads and can not become primary.
There is a nice mongodb course which is talking in depth about replication and sharding, so may be it is worth listening and trying it.
I have an application which is very low on writes. I'm therefore interested in deploying a mongo installation which maximizes the read throughput for the hardware I have (3 database servers in one location). I don't really care for redundancy (backups), but would like automatic failover. Additionally, I'm fine with "eventual consistency", and don't mind if data which isn't the latest data is returned.
I've looked into both sharding and replica sets, and as far as I can tell, I don't really need to use sharding as its benefits suit more for applications with many writes.
I therefore went ahead and installed a replica set on the three servers I have, and I then set the reading preference to "Nearest", as that would allow reads to take place on any server.
The problem is, I later read that the client is "sticky" and basically once it has chosen a "nearest" mongo server, it's not likely to change it. Besides, even if it were to "check for nearest" again, it'll probably choose the same one over. This pretty much results in an active/passive configuration, without any load-balancing. I do have two application servers, so if they choose different mongo servers, it might work ok, but say I wanted to have more than 3 mongo servers in the replica set, then any servers besides specific two would be passive.
Basically my question is, what's the best way to have an active/active configuration for my deployment? All I want is for requests to go to free mongo servers rather than busy ones.
One way to force this which I thought of is to create three sharded-clusters (each server participating in all three), where each server is the primary in one of these clusters - but this is still not optimal, because besides the relative complexity involved in this configuration, this also doesn't guarantee complete load balancing (for example, in case all requests at a given moment happen to go to one specific shard).
What's the right way to achieve what I want? If it's not possible to achieve this kind of load balancing with mongo, would you recommend that I go with the sharded-clusters solution?
As you already suspected, scaling reads is not a "one size fits all" problem. Everything will depend on your data, your access patterns, your requirements and probably a few other things only you can determine.
In a nutshell, the main thing to consider is why a single server can't handle your read load. If it's because of the size of your data set and the size of your indexes then sharding your data across three shards will reduce the RAM requirements of each of them (or to put it another way will give you the combined RAM of all three systems). As long as you pick a good shard key (one that will distribute the load approximately evenly across all the systems) you will get almost three times the throughput on targeted queries.
If the main requirement for your reads is to reduce as much as possible the latency of reading the data, then a replica set can serve your purposes well as reading from the "nearest" node will reduce the network round-trip time without changing the duration of the operation on the MongoDB server. This assumes that your writes are infrequent enough or that your application has tolerance of possibly stale data.