I'm thinking about the problem in question title: if I have to query for an aggregate in a distributed architecture where the distributed event store can eventually be waiting for last events to be distributed.. How can I know if the aggregate i'm reading via read model is not being replaced by the updated one in another server of the network?
I have an http server that receive events to save on the store. Store not exists actually but I want implement it soon.
Events regards huge aggregate that serialized in json format takes 4MB
Another sub-question is what storage do you recommend for the snapshot?
EDIT
I don't understand if the question is not written well or if I have selected wrong tags...
The ability to know when the "last" event in the distributed store is processed depends on two things:
Can you define "last"?
Does the distributed storage engine expose it to you?
The CAP theorem is a good reference to the sort of problems you are going to have with both of those in a distributed data store; in general, unless you give up availability you are not going to be able to have the properties needed to get what you want.
On the other hand, if you can define last in a meaningful way, you can still have what you want. For example: do your events expire after a while? If, for example, they expire after 12 hours, you know that you can always meaningfully define last as "the moment in time 12 hours ago", because any unprocessed event older than that is obsolete...
To answer your sub-question, I strongly recommend a storage engine that you do not write yourself, because distributed data storage is an awesomely hard problems that many very smart people, working for companies doing nothing but solving problems in this space, are doing for you.
Leverage their work instead.
Related
We would like to be able to read state inside a command use case.
We could get the state from event store for the specific aggregate, but what about querying aggregates by field(not id) or performing more complicated queries, that are not fitted for the event store?
The approach we were thinking was to use our read model for those cases as well and not only for query use cases.
This might be inconsistent, so a solution could be to have the latest version of the aggregate stored in both write/read models, in order to be able to tell if the state is correct or stale.
Does this make sense and if yes, if we need to get state by Id should we use event store or the read model?
If you want the absolute latest state of an event-sourced aggregate, you're going to have to read the latest snapshot (assuming that you are snapshotting) and then replay events since that snapshot from the event store. You can be aggressive about snapshotting (conceivably even saving a snapshot after every command), but you're giving away some write performance to make the read faster.
Updating the read model directly is conceivably possible, though that level of coupling is something that should be considered very carefully. Note also that you will very likely need some sort of two-phase commit to ensure that the read model is only updated when the write model is updated and vice versa. I strongly suggest considering why you're using CQRS/ES in this project, because you are quite possibly undermining that reason by doing this sort of thing.
In general, if you need a query for processing a particular command, it's likely that query will generally be the same, i.e. you don't need free-form query support. In that case, you can often have a read model that's tuned for exactly that query and which only cares about events which could affect that query: often a fairly small subset of the events. The finer-grained the read model, the easier it is to keep in sync (if it ignores 99% of events, for instance, it can't really fall that far behind).
Needing to make complex queries as part of command processing could also be a sign that your aggregate boundaries aren't right and could do with a re-examination.
Does this make sense
Maybe. Let's start with
This might be inconsistent
Yup, they might be. So what?
We typically respond to a query by sending an unlocked copy of the answer. In other words, it's possible that the actual information in the write model will change after this response is dispatched but before the response arrives at its destination. The client will be looking at a copy of the answer taken from the past.
So we might reasonably ask how much better it is to get information no more than one minute old compared to information no more than five minutes old. If the difference in value is pennies, then you should probably deploy the five minute version. If the difference is millions of dollars, then you're in a good position to negotiate a real budget to solve the problem.
For processing a command in our own write model, that kind of inconsistency isn't usually acceptable or wise. But neither of the two common answers require keeping the read and write models synchronized. The most common answer is to just work with the write model alone. The less common answer is to grab a snapshot out of a cache, and then apply any additional events to it to bring it up to date. The latter approach is "just" a performance optimization (first rule: don't.)
The variation that trips everyone up is trying to process a command somewhere else, enforcing a consistency rule on our data here. Once again, you need a really clear picture of how valuable the consistency is to the business. If it's really important, that may be a signal that the information in question shouldn't be split into two different piles - you may be working with the wrong underlying data model.
Possibly useful references
Pat Helland Data on the Outside Versus Data on the Inside
Udi Dahan Race Conditions Don't Exist
I am asking a question that I assume does not have a simple black and white question but the principal of which I'm asking is clear.
Sample situation:
Lets say I have a collection of 1 million books, and I consistently want to always pull the top 100 rated.
Let's assume that I need to perform an aggregate function every time I perform this query which makes it a little expensive.
It is reasonable, that instead of running the query for every request (100-1000 a second), I would create a dedicated collection that only stores the top 100 books that gets updated every minute or so, thus instead of running a difficult query a 100 times every second, I only run it once a minute, and instead pull from a small collection of books that only holds the 100 books and that requires no query (just get everything).
That is the principal I am questioning.
Should I create a dedicated collection for EVERY query that is often
used?
Should I do it only for complicated ones?
How do I gauge which is complicated enough and which is simple enough
to leave as is?
Is there any guidelines for best practice in those types of
situations?
Is there a point where if a query runs so often and the data doesn't
change very often that I should keep the data in the server's memory
for direct access? Even if it's a lot of data? How much is too much?
Lastly,
Is there a way in MongoDB to cache results?
If so, how can I tell it to fetch the cached result, and when to regenerate the cache?
Thank you all.
Before getting to collection specifics, one does have to differentiate between "real-time data" vis-a-vis data which does not require immediate and real-time presenting of information. The rules for "real-time" systems are obviously much different.
Now to your example starting from the end. The cache of query results. The answer is not only for MongoDB. Data architects often use Redis, or memcached (or other cache systems) to hold all types of information. This though, obviously, is a function of how much memory is available to your system and the DB. You do not want to cripple the DB by giving your cache too much of available memory, and you do not want your cache to be useless by giving it too little.
In the book case, of 100 top ones, since it is certainly not a real time endeavor, it would make sense to cache the query and feed that cache out to requests. You could update the cache based upon a cron job or based upon an update flag (which you create to inform your program that the 100 have been updated) and then the system will run an $aggregate in the background.
Now to the first few points:
Should I create a dedicated collection for EVERY query that is often used?
Yes and no. It depends on the amount of data which has to be searched to $aggregate your response. And again, it also depends upon your memory limitations and btw let me add the whole server setup in terms of speed, cores and memory. MHO - cache is much better, as it avoids reading from the data all the time.
Should I do it only for complicated ones?
How do I gauge which is complicated enough and which is simple enough to leave as is?
I dont think anyone can really black and white answer to that question for your system. Is a complicated query just an $aggregate? Or is it $unwind and then a whole slew of $group etc. options following? this is really up to the dataset and how much information must actually be read and sifted and manipulated. It will effect your IO and, yes, again, the memory.
Is there a point where if a query runs so often and the data doesn't change very often that I should keep the data in the server's memory for direct access? Even if it's a lot of data? How much is too much?
See answers above this is directly connected to your other questions.
Finally:
Is there any guidelines for best practice in those types of situations?
The best you can do here is to time the procedures in your code, monitor memory usage and limits, look at the IO, study actual reads and writes on the collections.
Hope this helps.
Use a cache to store objects. For example in Redis use Redis Lists
Redis Lists are simply lists of strings, sorted by insertion order
Then set expiry to either a timeout or a specific time
Now whenever you have a miss in Redis, run the query in MongoDB and re-populate your cache. Also since cache resids in memory therefore your fetches will be extremely fast as compared to dedicated collections in MongoDB.
In addition to that, you don't have to keep have a dedicated machine, just deploy it within your application machine.
We have a collection that is potentially going to be very large.This collection used to store Bill releated data. So this is often used to reporting/Analytics purpose.
Please let me know the best approch to handle this large collection
1) Can I split and archive the old data(say 12 months period)?.But here old data is required to get analytic reports.I want to query this old data to show the sale comparion for past 2 yesrs.
2)can I have new collection with old data(12 months) .So for every 12 months i've to create new collection. For reports generation,I've to access all this documents to query. So this will cause performance problem?
3) Can I go for Sharding?
There are many variables to account for, the clearest being what hardware you use, how the data is structured, and how it is queried. A distributed network ought to be able to chew through your data faster than a single machine, but before diving into that solution I recommend generating an absurd amount of mock data comparable to what you are expecting, and then testing various approaches. Seriously. Create a bunch of data, and try to break things. It's fun! Soon enough you'll know more about what your problem requires than any website could tell you.
As for direct responses:
Perhaps, before archiving the data, appropriate stats summaries can be generated (or updated). Those summaries/simplifications can be used for sale comparisons without reloading all of the archived data they represent.
This strikes me as sensible. By splitting up the sales data, you have more control over how much data needs to be accessed. After all, a user won't always wish to see 3 years of data, they may only wish to see last week's.
Move to sharding when you actually need it. As is stated on the MongoDB site:
Converting an unsharded database to a sharded cluster is easy and seamless, so there is little advantage in configuring sharding while your data set is small.
You'll know it's time when your memory-map approaches the server's RAM limit. MongoDB supports reading and writing to databases too large to keep in memory, but I'm sure you already know that is SLOW.
Background/Intent:
So I'm going to create an event tracker from scratch and have a couple of ideas on how to do this but I'm unsure of the best way to proceed with the database side of things. One thing I am interested in doing is allowing these events to be completely dynamic, but at the same time to allow for reporting on relational event counters.
For example, all countries broken down by operating systems. The desired effect would be:
US # of events
iOS - # of events that occured in US
Android - # of events that occured in US
CA # of events
iOS - # of events that occured in CA
Android - # of events that occured in CA
etc.
My intent is to be able to accept these event names like so:
/?country=US&os=iOS&device=iPhone&color=blue&carrier=Sprint&city=orlando&state=FL&randomParam=123&randomParam2=456&randomParam3=789
Which means in order to do the relational counters for something like the above I would potentially be incrementing 100+ counters per request.
Assume there will be 10+ million of the above requests per day.
I want to keep things completely dynamic in terms of the event names being tracked and I also want to do it in such a manner that the lookups on the data remains super quick. As such I have been looking into using redis or mongodb for this.
Questions:
Is there a better way to do this then counters while keeping the fields dynamic?
Provided this was all in one document (structured like a tree), would using the $inc operator in mongodb to increment 100+ counters at the same time in one operation be viable and not slow? The upside here being I can retrieve all of the statistics for one 'campaign' quickly in a single query.
Would this be better suited to redis and to do a zincrby for all of the applicable counters for the event?
Thanks
Depending on how your key structure is laid out I would recommend pipelining the zincr commands. You have an easy "commit" trigger - the request. If you were to iterate over your parameters and zincr each key, then at the end of the request pass the execute command it will be very fast. I've implemented a system like you describe as both a cgi and a Django app. I set up a key structure along the lines of this:
YYYY-MM-DD:HH:MM -> sorted set
And was able to process Something like 150000-200000 increments per second on the redis side with a single process which should be plenty for your described scenario. This key structure allows me to grab data based on windows of time. I also added an expire to the keys to avoid writing a db cleanup process. I then had a cronjob that would do set operations to "roll-up" stats in to hourly, daily, and weekly using variants of the aforementioned key pattern. I bring these ideas up as they are ways you can take advantage of the built in capabilities of Redis to make the reporting side simpler. There are other ways of doing it but this pattern seems to work well.
As noted by eyossi the global lock can be a real problem with systems that do concurrent writes and reads. If you are writing this as a real time system the concurrency may well be an issue. If it is an "end if day" log parsing system then it would not likely trigger the contention unless you run multiple instances of the parser or reports at the time of input. With regards to keeping reads fast In Redis, I would consider setting up a read only redis instance slaved off of the main one. If you put it on the server running the report and point the reporting process at it it should be very quick to generate the reports.
Depending on your available memory, data set size, and whether you store any other type of data in the redis instance you might consider running a 32bit redis server to keep the memory usage down. A 32b instance should be able to keep a lot of this type of data in a small chunk of memory, but if running the normal 64 bit Redis isn't taking too much memory feel free to use it. As always test your own usage patterns to validate
In redis you could use multi to increment multiple keys at the same time.
I had some bad experience with MongoDB, i have found that it can be really tricky when you have a lot of writes to it...
you can look at this link for more info and don't forget to read the part that says "MongoDB uses 1 BFGL (big f***ing global lock)" (which maybe already improved in version 2.x - i didn't check it)
On the other hand, i had a good experience with Redis, i am using it for a lot of read / writes and it works great.
you can find more information about how i am using Redis (to get a feeling about the amount of concurrent reads / writes) here: http://engineering.picscout.com/2011/11/redis-as-messaging-framework.html
I would rather use pipelinethan multiif you don't need the atomic feature..
I often hear about eventual consistency in different speeches about NoSQL, data grids etc.
It seems that definition of eventual consistency varies in many sources (and maybe even depends on a concrete data storage).
Can anyone give a simple explanation what Eventual Consistency is in general terms, not related to any concrete data storage?
Eventual consistency:
I watch the weather report and learn that it's going to rain tomorrow.
I tell you that it's going to rain tomorrow.
Your neighbor tells his wife that it's going to be sunny tomorrow.
You tell your neighbor that it is going to rain tomorrow.
Eventually, all of the servers (you, me, your neighbor) know the truth (that it's going to rain tomorrow), but in the meantime the client (his wife) came away thinking it is going to be sunny, even though she asked after one or more of the servers (you and me) had a more up-to-date value.
As opposed to Strict Consistency / ACID compliance:
Your bank balance is $50.
You deposit $100.
Your bank balance, queried from any ATM anywhere, is $150.
Your daughter withdraws $40 with your ATM card.
Your bank balance, queried from any ATM anywhere, is $110.
At no time can your balance reflect anything other than the actual sum of all of the transactions made on your account to that exact moment.
The reason why so many NoSQL systems have eventual consistency is that virtually all of them are designed to be distributed, and with fully distributed systems there is super-linear overhead to maintaining strict consistency (meaning you can only scale so far before things start to slow down, and when they do you need to throw exponentially more hardware at the problem to keep scaling).
Eventual consistency:
Your data is replicated on multiple servers
Your clients can access any of the servers to retrieve the data
Someone writes a piece of data to one of the servers, but it wasn't yet copied to the rest
A client accesses the server with the data, and gets the most up-to-date copy
A different client (or even the same client) accesses a different server (one which didn't get the new copy yet), and gets the old copy
Basically, because it takes time to replicate the data across multiple servers, requests to read the data might go to a server with a new copy, and then go to a server with an old copy. The term "eventual" means that eventually the data will be replicated to all the servers, and thus they will all have the up-to-date copy.
Eventual consistency is a must if you want low latency reads, since the responding server must return its own copy of the data, and doesn't have time to consult other servers and reach a mutual agreement on the content of the data. I wrote a blog post explaining this in more detail.
Think you have an application and its replica. Then you have to add new data item to the application.
Then application synchronises the data to other replica show in below
Meanwhile new client going to get data from one replica that not update yet. In that case he cant get correct up date data. Because synchronisation get some time. In that case it haven't eventually consistency
Problem is how can we eventually consistency?
For that we use mediator application to update / create / delete data and use direct querying to read data. that help to make eventually consistency
When an application makes a change to a data item on one machine, that change has to be propagated to the other replicas. Since the change propagation is not instantaneous, there’s an interval of time during which some of the copies will have the most recent change, but others won’t. In other words, the copies will be mutually inconsistent. However, the change will eventually be propagated to all the copies, and hence the term “eventual consistency”. The term eventual consistency is simply an acknowledgement that there is an unbounded delay in propagating a change made on one machine to all the other copies. Eventual consistency is not meaningful or relevant in centralized (single copy) systems since there’s no need for propagation.
source: http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/products/nosqldb/documentation/consistency-explained-1659908.pdf
Eventual consistency means changes take time to propagate and the data might not be in the same state after every action, even for identical actions or transformations of the data. This can cause very bad things to happen when people don’t know what they are doing when interacting with such a system.
Please don’t implement business critical document data stores until you understand this concept well. Screwing up a document data store implementation is much harder to fix than a relational model because the fundamental things that are going to be screwed up simply cannot be fixed as the things that are required to fix it are just not present in the ecosystem. Refactoring the data of an inflight store is also much harder than the simple ETL transformations of a RDBMS.
Not all document stores are created equal. Some these days (MongoDB) do support transactions of a sort, but migrating datastores is likely comparable to the expense of re-implementation.
WARNING: Developers and even architects who do not know or understand the technology of a document data store and are afraid to admit that for fear of losing their jobs but have been classically trained in RDBMS and who only know ACID systems (how different can it be?) and who don’t know the technology or take the time to learn it, will miss design a document data store. They may also try and use it as a RDBMS or for things like caching. They will break down what should be atomic transactions which should operate on an entire document into “relational” pieces forgetting that replication and latency are things, or worse yet, dragging third party systems into a “transaction”. They’ll do this so their RDBMS can mirror their data lake, without regard to if it will work or not, and with no testing, because they know what they are doing. Then they will act surprised when complex objects stored in separate documents like “orders” have less “order items” than expected, or maybe none at all. But it won’t happen often, or often enough so they’ll just march forward. They may not even hit the problem in development. Then, rather than redesign things, they will throw “delays” and “retries” and “checks” in to fake a relational data model, which won’t work, but will add additional complexity for no benefit. But its too late now - the thing has been deployed and now the business is running on it. Eventually, the entire system will be thrown out and the department will be outsourced and someone else will maintain it. It still won’t work correctly, but they can fail less expensively than the current failure.
In simple English, we can say: Although your system may be in inconsistent states, the aim is always to reach consistency at some point for each piece of data.
Eventual consistency is more like a spectrum. On one end you have strong consistency and on other you have eventual consistency. In between there are levels like Snapshot, read my writes, bounded staleness. Doug Terry has a beautiful explanation in his paper on eventual consistency thru baseball
.
As per me eventual consistency is basically toleration to random data in random order every time you read from a data store. Anything better than that is a stronger consistency model. For example, a snapshot has stale data but will return same data if read again so it is predictable. Sometimes application can tolerate data which is stale for a given amount of time beyond which it demands consistent data.
If you look at meaning of consistency it relates more to uniformity or lack of deviation. So in non computer system terms it could mean toleration for unexpected variations. It could be very well explained thru ATM. An ATM could be offline hence divergent from account balance from core systems. However there is a toleration for showing different balances for a window of time. Once the ATM comes online, it can sync with core systems and reflect same balance. So an ATM could be said to be eventually consistent.
Eventual consistency guarantees consistency throughout the system, but not at all times. There is an inconsistency window, where a node might not have the latest value, but will still return a valid response when queried, even if that response will not be accurate. Cassandra has a ring system where your data is split up into different nodes:
Any of those nodes can act as the primary interface point for your application. So there is no single point of failure because any of those nodes can serve as your primary API point. But there is a trade-off here. Because any node can be primary, that data needs to be replicated amongst all of these nodes in order to stay up to date. So all of the other nodes needs to know what is where at all times and that means that as a trade-off for this architecture, we have eventual consistency. Because it takes time for that data to propagate throughout the ring, through every node in your system. So, as the data is written, it might be a little bit of time before you can actually read that data back you just wrote. Maybe data is written to one node, but you are reading it from a different node and that written data have not made it to that other node yet.
Let's say you back up your photos on your phone to the cloud every Sunday. If you check your photos on Friday on your cloud, you are not going to see the photos that were taken between Monday-Friday. You are still getting a response but not an updated response but if you check your cloud on Sunday night you will see all of your photos. So your data across phone and cloud services eventually reach consistency.