Whats difference between fail-over and replication? I tried reading from this article https://github.com/donnemartin/system-design-primer#availability-in-numbers but I could not understand the difference.
Replication is creating or maintaining multiple copies of something -- generally your database, but possibly more, such an an image of your entire server.
Failover is when one system detects that another has failed, and responds by taking over its duties.
They are completely different things, though they are often are used together to serve purposes such as fault tolerance and disaster preparedness.
Related
I am working on an article describing fundamentals of technologies used by scalable systems. I have worked on Erlang before in a self-learning excercise. I have gone through several articles but have not been able to answer the following questions:
What is in the implementation of Erlang that makes it scalable? What makes it able to run concurrent processes more efficiently than technologies like Java?
What is the relation between functional programming and parallelization? With the declarative syntax of Erlang, do we achieve run-time efficiency?
Does process state not make it heavy? If we have thousands of concurrent users and spawn and equal number of processes as gen_server or any other equivalent pattern, each process would maintain a state. With so many processes, will it not be a drain on the RAM?
If a process has to make DB operations and we spawn multiple instances of that process, eventually the DB will become a bottleneck. This happens even if we use traditional models like Apache-PHP. Almost every business application needs DB access. What then do we gain from using Erlang?
How does process restart help? A process crashes when something is wrong in its logic or in the data. OTP allows you to restart a process. If the logic or data does not change, why would the process not crash again and keep crashing always?
Most articles sing praises about Erlang citing its use in Facebook and Whatsapp. I salute Erlang for being scalable, but also want to technically justify its scalability.
Even if I find answers to these queries on an existing link, that will help.
Regards,
Yash
Shortly:
It's unmutable. You have no variables, only terms, tuples and atoms. Program execution can be divided by breakpoint at any place. Fully transactional model.
Processes are even lightweight than .NET threads and isolated.
It's made for communications. Millions of connections? Fully asynchronous? Maximum thread safety? Big cross-platform environment, which built only for one purpose — scale&communicate? It's all Ericsson language — first in this sphere.
You can choose some impersonators like F#, Scala/Akka, Haskell — they are trying to copy features from Erlang, but only Erlang born from and born for only one purpose — telecom.
Answers to other questions you can find on erlang.com and I'm suggesting you to visit handbook. Erlang built for other aims, so it's not for every task, and if you asking about awful things like php, Erlang will not be your language.
I'm no Erlang developer (yet) but from what I have read about it some of the features that makes it very scalable is that Erlang has its own lightweight processes that are using message passing to communicate with each other. Because of this there is no such thing as shared state and locking which is the case when using for example a multi threaded Java application.
Another difference compared to Java is that the Erlang VM does garbage collection on every little process that is running which does not take any time at all compared to Java which does garbage collection only per VM.
If you get problem with bottlenecks from database connection you could start by using a database pooling app running against maybe a replicated PostgreSQL cluster or if you still have bottlenecks use a multi replicated NoSQL setup with Mnesia, Riak or CouchDB.
I think process restarts can be very useful when you are experiencing rare bugs that only appear randomly and only when specific criteria is fulfilled. Bugs that cause the application to crash as soon as you restart the app should optimally be fixed or taken care of with a circuit breaker so that it does not spread further.
Here is one way process restart helps. By not having to deal with all possible error cases. Say you have a program that divides numbers. Some guy enters a zero to divide by. Instead of checking for that possible error (and tons more), just code the "happy case" and let process crash when he enters 3/0. It just restarts, and he can figure out what he did wrong.
You an extend this into an infinite number of situations (attempting to read from a non-existent file because the user misspelled it, etc).
The big reason for process restart being valuable is that not every error happens every time, and checking that it worked is verbose.
Error handling is verbose typically, so writing it interspersed with the logic handling doing a task can make it harder to understand the code. Moving that logic outside of the task allows you to more clearly distinguish between "doing things" code, and "it broke" code. You just let the thing that had a problem fail, and handle it as needed by a supervising party.
Since most errors don't mean that the entire program must stop, only that that particular thing isn't working right, by just restarting the part that broke, you can keep operating in a state of degraded functionality, instead of being down, while you repair the problem.
It should also be noted that the failure recovery is bounded. You have to lay out the limits for how much failure in a certain period of time is too much. If you exceed that limit, the failure propagates to another level of supervision. Each restart includes doing any needed process initialization, which is sometimes enough to fix the problem. For example, in dev, I've accidentally deleted a database file associated with a process. The crashes cascaded up to the level where the file was first created, at which point the problem rectified itself, and everything carried on.
I'm trying to write an Erlang application (OTP) that would parse a list of users and then launch workers that will work 24X7 to collect user-data (using three different APIs) from remote servers and store it in ets.
What would be the ideal architecture for this kind of application. Do I launch a bunch of workers - one for each user (assuming small number users)? What will happen if number of users increases very rapidly?
Also, to call different APIs I need to put up a Timer mechanism in the worker process.
Any hint will be really appreciated.
Spawning new process for each user is not a such bad idea. There are http servers that do this for each connection, and they doing quite fine.
First of all cost of creating new process is minimal. And cost of maintaining processes is even smaller. If one of the has nothing to do, it won't do anything; there is none (almost) runtime overhead from inactive processes, which in the end means that you are doing only the work you have to do (this is in fact the source of Erlang systems reactivity).
Some issue might be memory usage. Each process has it's own memory stack, and in use-case when they actually do not need to store any internal data, you might be allocating some unnecessary memory. But this also could be modified (even during runtime), and in most cases such memory will be garbage collected.
Actually I would not worry about such things too soon. Issues you might encounter might depend on many things, mostly amount of outside data or user activity, and you can not really design this. Most probably you won't encounter any of them for quite some time. There's no need for premature optimization, especially if you could bind yourself to design that would slow down rest of your development process. In Erlang, with processes being main source of abstraction you can easily swap this process-per-user with pool-of-workers, and ets with external service. But only if you really need it.
What's most important is fact that representing "user" as process would be closest to problem domain. "Users" are independent entities, and deserve separate processes (they have their own state, and they can act or react independent to each other). It is quite similar to using Objects and Classes in other languages (it is over-simplification, but it should get you going).
If you were writing this in Python or C++ would you worry about how many objects you were creating? Only in extreme cases. In Erlang the same general rule applies for processes. Don't worry about how many you are creating.
As for architecture, the only element that is an architectural issue in your question is whether you should design a fixed worker pool or a 1-for-1 worker pool. The shape of the supervision tree would be an outcome of whichever way you choose.
If you are scraping data your real bottleneck isn't going to be how many processes you have, it will be how many network requests you are able to make per second on each API you are trying to access. You will almost certainly get throttled.
(A few months ago I wrote a test demonstration of a very similar system to what you are describing. The limiting factor was API request limits from providers like fb, YouTube, g+, Yahoo, not number of processes.)
As always with Erlang, write some system first, and then benchmark it for real before worrying about performance. You will usually find that performance isn't an issue, and the times that it is you will discover that it is much easier to optimize one small part of an existing system than to design an optimized system from scratch. So just go for it and write something that basically does what you want right now, and worry about optimization tweaks after you have something that basically does what you want. After getting some concrete performance data (memory, request latency, etc.) is the time to start thinking about performance.
Your problem will almost certainly be on the API providers' side or your network latency, not congestion within the Erlang VM.
I have a Rails app that uses MySQL, MongoDB, NodeJS (and SocketIO). Right now, the app (everything) is hosted inside 1 box. I would like to know what I should do when the number of users grow. What factors should I take into account to determine whether I need to host a separate element in another box (like MySQL, Node, Mongo in each of its separate box). Should I just make that one single box bigger? Is there a best-practice method that I can go with?
If you guys can provide me with reference, guides, research regarding this topic. Please do. I am super noob at deployment and server configuration.
We faced this dilemma at work a short while ago and found that simply upgrading to a more powerful single box sufficed and would give us room to grow further by up to 3-4 times.
The most important thing would be to identify your potential bottlenecks.
In our case there were 2 bottlenecks. Disk I/O and the database's ability to utilise memory.
On our new server we had the hard drive array configured in such a way as to maximise the disk I/O and we upgraded the database software to allow it to use more memory. In fact the DBMS now keeps the entire database in memory and only performs write operations to the disk as needed. This significantly improved performance.
The short answer is move everything to its own box. The longer answer is: it depends on your app's usage.
I recommend you use Nagios or similar to monitor your app's resource utilization -- that is, how much CPU and RAM each of your services use. When one starts to each up too much resources (and your page load speed is negatively affected), move that to its own box.
Then continue to monitor that box, beef up when necessary or shard out.
The high scalability blog is good for reading on what other people have done.
When you hit a roof on reading from a database, you have two choices, scale vertically by putting more hardware in the server, or scale horizontally by putting a second server to help offload the reads.
Offloading reads to a second server, means that all writes will hit both servers, while read only hits one.
Problem is when you hit a roof with writing, since writing has to happen to all servers, it means that all servers will be overloaded with write requests, and the server comes unusable. Adding more servers to the problem doesn't help, since it only adds more servers that will be overloaded. So you have to scale vertically.
Is this something that is specific to RDBMS'? or is it something that happens with all DBMS'?
I know you can do things on software side, and split the database in two, eg. all entries starting with 0-m in one db while n-z in another, but IMHO it is more of a workaround than a solution to the problem.
I can't see that this would be specific to the relational model. All databases that have to read and write (and that's most of them) will have a similar problem.
For what it's worth, most databases are read far more than written so the write roof occurs less frequently than you might think. In addition, load balancing databases as per your method tends to be an immediate write to the primary with queued writes to all secondaries (at least in my experience).
In that case, you're not actually waiting around for multiple writes as a user, you just wait for the first. The DBMS itself manages the synchronisation between instances. This of course means that secondary databases might not be totally up-to-date but this can be controlled. Technically, this breaks the ACID properties of the system as a whole but this can be architected around.
I think this is the case with any DBMS, although some handle it better than others. Like you mention, partitioning the database in software seems to be the most common solution to this.
In many applications though, partitioning the database like that makes sense anyways if you are at such a huge scale that it becomes necessary. For example, if you had a social networking app, it would probably make sense to partition your database by country or other geographical regions. This would allow you to have your servers located geographically close to the regions they serve. It would also help mitigate any problems with a cross-database "social graph" since peoples friends tend to live nearby.
You're hardly going to "hit a roof with writing, since writing has to happen to all server" because in most of RDBMS installations:
1) Reads are overwhelming more frequent than writes
2) Modern RDBMs have Multi-Version Concurrency Control able to reduce blocking when reading/writing
It seems that the only tutorials out there talking about using Amazon's SimpleDB in a rails site are using AWSDBProxy... Personally, I find this counter-intuitive to scaling out, considering the server layout of a typical Rails site below (using AWSDBProxy):
Plugin here: http://agilewebdevelopment.com/plugins/aws_sdb_proxy
Image here: http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/91be4e0617.png
As you can see, even if we add more mongrels, we have two problems.
We have a single point of failure far less stable than our load balancer
We have to force all our information through this one WEBrick server
The solution is, of course, to add more AWSDBProxies... but why not then just use the following code in say, a class, skipping the proxy all together?
service = AwsSdb::Service.new(Logger.new(nil),
CONFIG['aws_access_key_id'],
CONFIG['aws_secret_access_key'])
service.query(domain, query)
So what I'm getting at, is if you are using AWSDBProxy, what are you justifications for it? And if you are indeed using it, what is your performance like? If you have hard numbers, this would be even more appreciated!
I'm not using it, nor have I ever heard of it, but this is what I would think are reasonable reasons.
You're running your main app server on EC2, so the chance of Internet FAIL doesn't really affect you more than once.
You run one proxy on each of your app servers. So it's connection going down is no worse than it's connection(s) to the database going down.
Because it can be done. This is as good a reason as any in an open source project. Sometimes it takes building a thing before you know whether said thing is a good/bad idea.
You don't have the traffic levels to need a load balancer. Then your diagram squashes down to a line, if not a single machine.