In Heroku, I notice that they limit my free Memcached Bucket (actually Membase) to 5MB. However, I tried it on my own server and cannot set Bucket quota to less than 64MB (per node, and for Memcached bucket type). For Membase bucket type, it's even more: 100MB.
Hmm, my server have a humble amount of RAM. And I need to allocate a very small amount of Memcached. Please advice.
Heroku is running a slightly modified version of our memcached software that lets them keep the bucket overhead very low. Unfortunately the "productized" version has some limits imposed to prevent the software from getting itself into trouble.
Especially for Membase buckets, we need at least 100mb in order to safely run.
You may be able to reduce/eliminate these limits if you recompile the source, but that wouldn't be a supported configuration.
Perry
Sorry for the delay in getting back to this...
As with any piece of software, there are internal data structures that need RAM to run...that's what gets allocated immediately with Membase.
If you install memcached, it will use as much RAM as you configure it to use...no more, no less.
Related
I've got a task to do and some limited hardware resources, as always.
I need to setup postgres server with single database, with a table of largeobjects (3TB+) and a few small, heavily accessed tables (<10 GB).
I've got old physical server with ~5 TB of harddisk space, with limited CPU and RAM, I can also use much faster (in CPU and RAM) virtual server - but limited in storage.
I won't have much DELETE statements, most SELECT statements will be to recent data. There will be one simultanous connection doing all the job, client on one host only.
I see a few scenarios:
Postgres on virtual machine with remote storage (single instance)
Postgres on old hardware with local storage (single instance)
Postgres on both, with some kind of replication (high speed virtual machine for new data, low speed for older data on the old hardware)
Any other ideas?
Is it even possible to replicate just the most recent part of the postgres database?
90% of SELECT queries will be to the most recent ~5-10 gigabytes of data, but I need seamless access to the rest 2,990 TB.
What should I do? (except buying appropriate hardware;)
It doesn't really matter as long as you have enough RAM to buffer the 10GB of heavily accessed data.
You'll need some additional RAM to read large objects without pushing the 10GB out of the cache, but that shouldn't be a problem on today's machines.
If all your work is done on one connection, that sounds like there will be no high load on the database.
So I wouldn't really worry about scaling with requirements like that.
Your biggest worry should probably be how to backup 3TB of data in a reasonable time.
Edit: If you have much less memory, you should take the machine with the faster storage.
Finally I've checked several different scenarios and decided not to keep files/largeobjects in database.
Postgres with database location mounted over NFS (v4) had some lags - It was faster but it was choking for a few seconds periodically, i decided to store plain files over NFS which is significantly slower but more stable.
I'm sure there was a way to tune it, but this solution is fine too.
Postgres is used for file index and keeps their files on local harddisk.
I'm testing running monbodb on the kubernetes platform where I can limit the resources used by the running container.
Say I set the memory limit to 256Mb. The problem is that for example while making backup memory consumption increases to the limit and container gets restarted by kubernetes.
So the question is is there a way to limit mongodb memory consumption for my case so that it would not cause the crush by exeeding memory limit set by platform.
I could of course increase the limit but I'm interested in a principal solution and would like to understand this process better because I don't really now how memory consumed by mongodb and container os. Is it possible to tune mongodb/underlying linux os to work inside existing limits.
The limits that you have set are good enough for a monogodb pod, these are the limits used by the community as well.
The only way I think you can get around this for backups is to increase the memory limits, but still it might fail, because in other places on stackoverflow people have experienced OOM killing on VMs with memory of giga bytes. MongoDB basically tries to eat any and every memory that is made available to it.
Also there are other ways to backup mongodb: https://dba.stackexchange.com/questions/76130/how-to-backup-large-mongodb-database
I am not sure how this aligns in the k8s world.
We have PostgreSQL instance serving tens of r/w queries per second.
Instance type: db.m3.2xlarge
Instance Provisioned IOPS (SSD): 1000
Instance storage size: 100GB , Database size is about 5-10GB.
It is serving 100s of simultaneous clients with read-write queries. Yet, when we look at Cloudwatch Monitoring it shows IOPS in range of 20-60.
And Read iOPS is around 0!
This can't be right with 100s of connections and clients performing read/write queries all the time?
The Postgres configuration is standard, we did not turn off fsync.
Is the cache so effective that IOPS is not a factor with database size of 5GB?
Or AWS monitoring console wrong?
Paying for 1000 IOPS cost extra $300 for this db instance.
And minimum IOPS you can buy is 1000.
I am wondering if we can do without IOPS?
Or AWS monitoring is not correct?
Or 20 IOPS we're having now will kill the server performance if we have non-IOPS server?
Or with 5GB database it mostly fits in cache and IOPS is not a factor?
#CraigRinger is correct. If your dataset is small enough to fit entirely in memory, you won't need provisioned IOPS since insert/update traffic and logs are the only consuming IOPS.
But in case someone finds this topic, here's what CloudWatch looks like when you've exhausted your GP2 credits. As you can see there the Read and Write IOPS charts don't tell us much, but the read/write latency charts show massive spikes.
For context, these are 2 weeks of a PostgreSQL read replica used for analytics. The switch from 100GB GP2 (300 Base IOPS, $11.50/mo) to 100GB io1 (1000 IOPS, $112.50/mo) happens about 2/3 way through these charts (no more latency spikes). The cheaper option would've been to just up the quantity of GP2 storage. Provisioned IOPS are outrageously overpriced, but predictable behavior during heavy workloads in this instance made sense.
Your DB is almost entirely cached in RAM. (You can confirm this with use of the pg_buffercache extension). Those IOPS numbers are entirely to be expected. I would expect this server to be just fine without provisioned IOPS.
If you restart the instance it'll be slow for a little while as it builds the cache back up, but 5GB isn't much for that. Also, having provisioned iops actually makes this worse, because as well as setting a minimum I/O rate, piops sets the maximum too. It's a target rate not a minimum.
By contrast, regular volumes can burst to much higher read rates than piops volumes, so they'll perform better when you're warming the cache back up after a restart.
BTW:
Restarting the database won't slow it much, as it only has to read data from the OS's disk cache back into shared_buffers. It's only if you restart the whole machine that you'll see a slowdown for a while. If you want to simulate this without a restart, you can use Linux's drop_caches feature:
echo 1 | sudo tee -a /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches
This is actually worse than the situation after a restart because it evicts binaries and libraries from memory too. The system will chug very heavily at first, as it reads the very frequently accessed binaries and libraries it's executing back into RAM. Then you'll start to see cache recovery behaviour like you would after a restart.
Also, you have too many connections configured. Install pgbouncer, put it in front of the database, and reduce your max_connections. You'll get better performance.
I'm trying to decide between using the Heroku Crane PostgreSQL database ($50/month - https://postgres.heroku.com/pricing) or setting up a Linode 1GB Ram / 8 CPU / 48GB Storage / 2TB Transfer instance with PostgreSQL installed ($20/month - https://www.linode.com/).
I know that from a management perspective, using Heroku Crane PostgreSQL would be much easier, as everything is managed with security and backups taken care of.
What I was curious about is how performance of the two databases would compare. With the Linode 1GB / 8 CPU instance, only my database will be used on it. I see with Heroku Crane that it says it only gets 400 MB RAM. It also isn't clear with Heroku Crane how many CPU's I get and whether its a dedicated instance.
Does the Heroku DB manages the RAM/Cache of the DB more efficiently? Its unclear to me whether the Linode PostgreSQL instance would automatically use the 1GB RAM available to it efficiently, or if it would require custom setup on my part to ensure the DB is loaded into RAM.
If it is that the Heroku DB would be less performant for the money, but is a better deal because security, backups and management are taken care of, that is probably acceptable, I just want to understand the tradeoffs.
Thanks for any info people can provide. I'm new to DB management, and have been using a Linode 1GB instance with PostgreSQL installed for development and testing, but now that I'm going to production, am questioning whether to move over to Heroku Crane. Also, not sure if this matters, but my server is hosted through Heroku web instances.
Lower Heroku plans are on a shared server partitioned into containers with LXC. The details are on Heroku's site. Your plan appears to be one of them.
This can actually be a win as discussed in this question if you happen to be on an instance where other users aren't putting much load on the server. It makes your performance less predictable though.
The only good way to characterize performance is to benchmark with a simulation of your production workload.
Whether the RAM actually matters or not depends on your data. If your frequently accessed data and indexes fit in RAM on one machine, but not on another, then the RAM difference will make a huge difference. If the data fits in RAM on both hosts there's little benefit to adding RAM. If the hot data won't fit in RAM on either machine then disk I/O performance becomes more important than RAM, mostly random read I/O and the fsync() flush rate.
So. Benchmark with a simulation of your workload with your expected data size and see.
Heroku discusses cache in more detail here.
(I work for another company in the same kind of space as Heroku, per my profile, so I'm reluctant to express a strong opinion one way or the other).
I'm using MongoDB on a 32 bit production system, which sucks but it's out of my control right now. The challenge is to keep the memory usage under ~2.5GB since going over this will cause 32 bit systems to crash.
According to the mongoDB team, the best way to track the memory usage is to use your operating system's process tracking system (i.e. ps or htop on Unix systems; Process Explorer on Windows.) for virtual memory size.
The DB mainly consists of one table which is continually cycling data, i.e. receiving data at regular intervals from sensors, and every day a cron job wipes all data from before the last 3 days. Over a period of time, the memory usage slowly increases. I took some notes over time using db.serverStats(), db.lectura.totalSize() and ps, shown in the chart below. Note that the size of the table in question has reduced in the last month but the memory usage increased nonetheless.
Now, there is some scope for adjustment in how many days of data I store. Today I deleted basically half of the data, and then restarted mongodb, and yet the mem virtual / mem mapped and most importantly memory usage according to ps have hardly changed! Why do these not reduce when I wipe data (and restart)? I read some other questions where people said that mongo isn't really using all the memory that it might appear to be using, and that you can't clear the cache or limit memory use. But then how can I ensure I stay under the 2.5GB limit?
Unless there is a way to stem this dataset-size-irrespective gradual increase in memory usage, it seems to me that the 32-bit version of Mongo is unuseable. Note: I don't mind losing a bit of performance if it solves the problem.
To answer regarding why the mapped and virtual memory usage does not decrease with the deletes, the mapped number is actually what you get when you mmap() the entire set of data files. This does not shrink when you delete records, because although the space is freed up inside the data files, they are not themselves reduced in size - the files are just more empty afterwards.
Virtual will include journal files, and connections, and other non-data related memory usage also, but the same principle applies there. This, and more, is described here:
http://www.mongodb.org/display/DOCS/Checking+Server+Memory+Usage
So, the 2GB storage size limitation on 32-bit will actually apply to the data files whether or not there is data in them. To reclaim deleted space, you will have to run a repair. This is a blocking operation and will require the database to be offline/unavailable while it was run. It will also need up to 2x the original size in terms of free disk space to be able to run the repair, since it essentially represents writing out the files again from scratch.
This limitation, and the problems it causes, is why the 32-bit version should not be run in production, it is just not suitable. I would recommend getting onto a 64-bit version as soon as possible.
By the way, neither of these figures (mapped or virtual) actually represents your resident memory usage, which is what you really want to look at. The best way to do this over time is via MMS, which is the free monitoring service provided by 10gen - it will graph virtual, mapped and resident memory for you over time as well as plenty of other stats.
If you want an immediate view, run mongostat and check out the corresponding memory columns (res, mapped, virtual).
In general, when using 64-bit builds with essentially unlimited storage, the data will usually greatly exceed the available memory. Therefore, mongod will use all of the available memory it can in terms of resident memory (which is why you should always have swap configured to the OOM Killer does not come into play).
Once that is used, the OS does not stop allocating memory, it will just have the oldest items paged out to make room for the new data (LRU). In other words, the recycling of memory will be done for you, and the resident memory level will remain fairly constant.
Your options for stretching 32-bit are limited, but you can try some things. The thing that you run out of is address space, and the increases in the sizes of additional database files mean that you would like to avoid crossing over the boundary from "n" files to "n+1". It may be worth structuring your data into more or fewer databases so that you can get the maximum amount of actual data into memory and as little as possible "dead space".
For example, if your database named "mydatabase" consists of the files mydatabase.ns (the namespace file) at 16 MB, mydatabase.0 at 64 MB, mydatabase.1 at 128 MB and mydatabase.2 at 256 MB, then the next file created for this database will be mydatabase.3 at 512 MB. If instead of adding to mydatabase you instead created an additional database "mynewdatabase" it would start life with mynewdatabase.ns at 16 MB and mynewdatabase.0 at 64 MB ... quite a bit smaller than the 512 MB that adding to the original database would be. In fact, you could create 4 new databases for less space than would be consumed by adding a new file to the original database, and because the files are smaller they would be easier to fit into contiguous blocks of memory.
It is a well-known message that 32-bit should not be used for production.
Use 64-bit systems.
Point.