Is this possible? I couldn't find an answer anywhere.
Basically I'm looking at a setup where I have multiple workers (boxes) which must all store there data into a Tokyo Cabinet index/db eventually (I'm using Tokyto Tyrant over the memcached protocol abtw. not that it matters but still)
Basically, I tried pushing the data directly to another box which runs Tokyo Tyrant, but the TT can't handle it after a while. Inserts get really slow, and workers sit there idle wanting to offload data to the TT-server. (I tried all sorts of things to improve performance, more ram, raid-configs, multiple TT-servers on the box, etc) but the major drop in performance (inserts/ sec) comes sooner or later.
Now, I'm looking at the option to let each worker store it's own data in a local Tokyo Tyrant db and merge the db's of all workers afterwards (no duplicate keys guarenteed)
Any help appreciated, (also of other ways to distribute load on TT appreciated)
btw: the config for TT: #bnum=20000000#opts=l#xmsiz=162000000
I set bnum to the upperbound of items expected: 20 mil.
Thanks, Geert-Jan
check out kchashmgr. you could dump the files out into data files and then load them into a new kch file created with a bigger bnum.
Related
I am working on a front end system for a radius server.
The radius server will pass updates to the system every 180 seconds. Which means if I have about 15,000 clients that would be around 7,200,000 entries per day...Which is a lot.
I am trying to understand what the best possible way to store and retrieve this data will be. Obviously as time goes on, this will become substantial. Will MongoDB handle this? Typical document is not much, something this
{
id: 1
radiusId: uniqueId
start: 2017-01-01 14:23:23
upload: 102323
download: 1231556
}
However, there will be MANY of these records. I guess this is something similar to the way that SNMP NMS servers handle data which as far as I know they use RRD to do this.
Currently in my testing I just push every document into a single collection. So I am asking,
A) Is Mongo the right tool for the job and
B) Is there a better/more preferred/more optimal way to store the data
EDIT:
OK, so just incase someone comes across this and needs some help.
I ran it for a while in mongo, I was really not satisfied with performance. We can chalk this up to the hardware I was running on, perhaps my level of knowledge or the framework I was using. However I found a solution that works very well for me. InfluxDB pretty much handles all of this right out of the box, its a time series database which is effectively the data I am trying to store (https://github.com/influxdata/influxdb). Performance for me has been like night & day. Again, could all be my fault, just updating this.
EDIT 2:
So after a while I think I figured out why I never got the performance I was after with Mongo. I am using sailsjs as framework and it was searching by id using regex, which obviously has a huge performance hit. I will eventually try migrate back to Mongo instead of influx and see if its better.
15,000 clients updating every 180 seconds = ~83 insertions / sec. That's not a huge load even for a moderately sized DB server, especially given the very small size of the records you're inserting.
I think MongoDB will do fine with that load (also, to be honest, almost any modern SQL DB would probably be able to keep up as well). IMHO, the key points to consider are these:
Hardware: make sure you have enough RAM. This will primarily depend on how many indexes you define, and how many queries you're doing. If this is primarily a log that will rarely be read, then you won't need much RAM for your working set (although you'll need enough for your indexes). But if you're also running queries then you'll need much more resources
If you are running extensive queries, consider setting up a replica set. That way, your master server can be reserved for writing data, ensuring reliability, while your slaves can be configured to serve your queries without affecting the write reliability.
Regarding the data structure, I think that's fine, but it'll really depend on what type of queries you wish to run against it. For example, if most queries use the radiusId to reference another table and pull in a bunch of data for each record, then you might want to consider denormalizing some of that data. But again, that really depends on the queries you run.
If you're really concerned about managing the write load reliably, consider using the Mongo front-end only to manage the writes, and then dumping the data to a data warehouse backend to run queries on. You can partially do this by running a replica set like I mentioned above, but the disadvantage of a replica set is that you can't restructure the data. The data in each member of the replica set is exactly the same (hence the name, replica set :-) Oftentimes, the best structure for writing data (normalized, small records) isn't the best structure for reading data (denormalized, large records with all the info and joins you need already done). If you're running a bunch of complex queries referencing a bunch of other tables, using a true data warehouse for the querying part might be better.
As your write load increases, you may consider sharding. I'm assuming the RadiusId points to each specific server among a pool of Radius servers. You could potentially shard on that key, which would split the writes based on which server is sending the data. Thus, as you increase your radius servers, you can increase your mongo servers proportionally to maintain write reliability. However, I don't think you need to do this right away as I bet one reasonably provisioned server should be able to manage the load you've specified.
Anyway, those are my preliminary suggestions.
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.
I'm having trouble understanding the complexities of Lucene. Any help would be appreciated.
We're using a Windows Azure blob to store our Lucene index, with Lucene.Net and AzureDirectory. A WorkerRole contains the only IndexWriter, and it adds 20,000 or more records a day, and changes a small number (fewer than 100) of the existing documents. A WebRole on a different box is set up to take two snapshots of the index (into another AzureDirectory), alternating between the two, and telling the WebService which directory to use as it becomes available.
The WebService has two IndexSearchers that alternate, reloading as the next snapshot is ready--one IndexSearcher is supposed to handle all client requests at a time (until the newer snapshot is ready). The IndexSearcher sometimes takes a long time (minutes) to instantiate, and other times it's very fast (a few seconds). Since the directory is physically on disk already (not using the blob at this stage), we expected it to be a fast operation, so this is one confusing point.
We're currently up around 8 million records. The Lucene search used to be so fast (it was great), but now it's very slow. To try to improve this, we've started to IndexWriter.Optimize the index once a day after we back it up--some resources online indicated that Optimize is not required for often-changing indexes, but other resources indicate that optimization is required, so we're not sure.
The big problem is that whenever our web site has more traffic than a single user, we're getting timeouts on the Lucene search. We're trying to figure out if there's a bottleneck at the IndexSearcher object. It's supposed to be thread-safe, but it seems like something is blocking the requests so that only a single search is performed at a time. The box is an Azure VM, set to a Medium size so it has lots of resources available.
Thanks for whatever insight you can provide. Obviously, I can provide more detail if you have any further questions, but I think this is a good start.
I have much larger indexes and have not run into these issues (~100 million records).
Put the indexes in memory if you can (8 million records sounds like it should fit into memory depending on the amount of analyzed fields etc.) You can use the RamDirectory as the cache directory
IndexSearcher is thread-safe and supposed to be re-used, but I am not sure if that is the reality. In Lucene 3.5 (Java version) they have a SearcherManager class that manages multiple threads for you.
http://java.dzone.com/news/lucenes-searchermanager
Also a non-Lucene post, if you are on an extra-large+ VM make sure you are taking advantage of all of the cores. Especially if you have an Web API/ASP.NET front-end for it, those calls all should be asynchronous.
Say I have a large production mirrored 1TB DB that resides on a single MDF device and I would like to split that up into say 5 200 Gig devices.
I want to do this without interruption to Production.
I thought I could break the mirror and use the RESTORE process for creating a mirror to achieve the split to multiple devices quickly and without interruption to Production. Doing this twice would allow me to get this done in a few hours.
Has anyone done this? Is it the preferred method seeing as we are mirroring anyways?
What are other my alternatives, Pros and Cons? And gotchas?
Also, I recall another more organic process where one would create the 5 new New Devices and somehow, over time get the objects to move over to the new devices. Not sure of the process for this but I seem to recall it being discussed. Sounds like this could take a long time and possibly cause some clocking at times?
Thanks
...Ray
This isn't quite as simple a process as it first looks, the reason being is that just adding the files to SQL server isn't enough as even if you were to add 4 new files, they would all be empty space, you would have one file with 1Tb of data in it and 4 empty ones, which would eventually fill up as SQL server uses a proportional fill method for the files, but most of your queries would still be hitting the single file.
I take it you are doing this to improve performance? If so, you will need to move data around into different files in order to actually split the data up. Whether you can do this online or not depends on whether you are running Enterprise Edition or not (as this allows you to rebuild indexes online).
An easy way to move a table (or more accurately a clustered index, which is pretty much the same thing as the table for all intents and purposes) is to add a new filegroup with a new data file and then rebuild the clustered index specifying the new filegroup, you can use the following to do this:
CREATE CLUSTERED INDEX Existing_Index_Name ON schema_name.table_name(column_name)
WITH(DROP_EXISTING=ON,Online=ON) on [new_filegroup_name]
GO
This code will create the new index on the new filegroup, get rid of the old one and if you are running enterprise edition, it will do it all without blocking the users.
See the following link for more methods of moving the data between filegroups:
Move data between SQL Server database filegroups
You should also look into partitioning your tables to help improve performance too:
Partitioning Tables and Indexes
With regards to your mirroring setup, you should break the mirror, then on the primary add all your files/filegroups, then move the data between the filegroups, then backup the modified database on the primary, restore on the mirror (so all the files are set up the same on the mirror) and then re-set up your mirroring.
This may be a long shot, but I thought I'd ask anyway.
I am looking at using Heroku's new Crane Postgres DB (400 MB RAM Cache) in conjunction with an app I'm deploying on Heroku. The 400 MB cache size should be plenty for our needs... except for one column of one table, in which we store a cached PDF file as a string. The PDF's could easily use up the 400MB RAM pretty quickly if Heroku uses its Cache for them.
If I were on an actual server, I'd just store the PDF as a file, but given Heroku's ephemeral file system, my life is much simpler if I just store the pdf in the DB rather than rigging up a connection to S3 just for this one thing. (It further complicates that we're looking at deploying multiple heroku instances, one for each client ... so using the DB's is simpler than creating a new bucket for each one.) I don't really care about the speed on this. If people are getting the file, they will expect speeds as if it were coming from a file system anyhow, since thats how most file downloads are done. Is there any way to tell PostGRES to not bother caching this column?
Or maybe I'm asking the wrong question, and there is some other way to solve the problem or design alternatives that make it irrelevant.
You don't have to do anything. PostgreSQL will automatically use TOAST on values larger than 8 kB.
From http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.1/static/storage-toast.html
PostgreSQL uses a fixed page size (commonly 8 kB), and does not allow tuples to span multiple pages. Therefore, it is not possible to store very large field values directly. To overcome this limitation, large field values are compressed and/or broken up into multiple physical rows. This happens transparently to the user, with only small impact on most of the backend code. The technique is affectionately known as TOAST (or "the best thing since sliced bread").
PostgreSQL caching is also done at the page level so TOAST does not have to be cached with the rest of the row (http://www.westnet.com/~gsmith/content/postgresql/InsideBufferCache.pdf).
The fact that Postgres can TOAST large field values, it doesn't mean it's the best thing to do.
If you store big fields in your main database, it will make many things harder, such as creating forks or followers, and creating and restoring backups in particular. I would strongly reconsider utilizing S3 to store the PDF files, and simply invest in automated onboarding of new clients (create heroku app, provision database, provision/create S3 bucket).
I'm not quite sure how you're managing to store large PDF's, since Postgres imposes a maximum field size (or at least a maximum page size). However, you might be able to get around this by using TOAST. TOASTed items are stored in a separate (physical) table, so if you're not selecting them frequently they shouldn't be cached.
If you are selecting them frequently, then I'm not sure if what you want is possible. Remember that Postgres only supplies one "level" of caching - the Linux VFS does caching also.