I am building a real-time application where the clients get the state of the app every second. I am considering using pure memory or Redis and I am not sure which one is faster. Most likely pure memory is faster but at what cost? What are the benefits of Redis?
not really an expert in this field but I assume
memory will be faster assuming you'd use proper structure (dict)
redis can store data to the amount limited by your HDD space, while storing in memory is limited by free ram
data stored in redis will not get lost eg in case of power outage, reboot etc.
Related
I have a single page Angular app that makes request to a Rails API service. Both are running on a t2xlarge Ubuntu instance. I am using a Postgres database.
We had increase in traffic, and my Rails API became slow. Sometimes, I get an error saying Passenger queue full for rails application.
Auto scaling on the server is working; three more instances are created. But I cannot trace this issue. I need root access to upgrade, which I do not have. Please help me with this.
As you mentioned that you are using T2.2xlarge instance type. Firstly I want to tell you should not use T2 instance type for production environment. Cause of T2 instance uses CPU Credit. Lets take a look on this
What happens if I use all of my credits?
If your instance uses all of its CPU credit balance, performance
remains at the baseline performance level. If your instance is running
low on credits, your instance’s CPU credit consumption (and therefore
CPU performance) is gradually lowered to the base performance level
over a 15-minute interval, so you will not experience a sharp
performance drop-off when your CPU credits are depleted. If your
instance consistently uses all of its CPU credit balance, we recommend
a larger T2 size or a fixed performance instance type such as M3 or
C3.
Im not sure you won't face to the out of CPU Credit problem because you are using Xlarge type but I think you should use other fixed performance instance types. So instance's performace maybe one part of your problem. You should use cloudwatch to monitor on 2 metrics: CPUCreditUsage and CPUCreditBalance to make sure the problem.
Secondly, how about your ASG? After scale-out, did your service become stable? If so, I think you do not care about this problem any more because ASG did what it's reponsibility.
Please check the following
If you are opening a connection to Database, make sure you close it.
If you are using jquery, bootstrap, datatables, or other css libraries, use the CDN links like
<link rel="stylesheet" ref="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/bootstrap-select/1.12.4/css/bootstrap-select.min.css">
it will reduce a great amount of load on your server. do not copy the jquery or other external libraries on your own server when you can directly fetch it from other servers.
There are a number of factors that can cause an EC2 instance (or any system) to appear to run slowly.
CPU Usage. The higher the CPU usage the longer to process new threads and processes.
Free Memory. Your system needs free memory to process threads, create new processes, etc. How much free memory do you have?
Free Disk Space. Operating systems tend to thrash when the file systems on system drives run low on free disk space. How much free disk space do you have?
Network Bandwidth. What is the average bytes in / out for your
instance?
Database. Monitor connections, free memory, disk bandwidth, etc.
Amazon has CloudWatch which can provide you with monitoring for everything except for free disk space (you can add an agent to your instance for this metric). This will also help you quickly see what is happening with your instances.
Monitor your EC2 instances and your database.
You mention T2 instances. These are burstable CPUs which means that if you have consistenly higher CPU usage, then you will want to switch to fixed performance EC2 instances. CloudWatch should help you figure out what you need (CPU or Memory or Disk or Network performance).
This is totally independent of AWS Server. Looks like your software needs more juice (RAM, StorageIO, Network) and it is not sufficient with one machine. You need to evaluate the metric using cloudwatch and adjust software needs based on what is required for the software.
It could be memory leaks or processing leaks that may lead to this as well. You need to create clusters or server farm to handle the load.
Hope it helps.
I'm new to Redis. I want to get an idea of how heavy a redis instance in terms of it's memory footprint (without considering the actual data that is being stored in memory)? It there a "lite" version of Redis ? Or are there other options that will work in this environment ?
It's very small. In the pre-sharding section of the partitioning information page, it states that a "spare" instance uses about 1MB of RAM. http://redis.io/topics/partitioning
I want to make some product to offer key-value data system. but local memory is limited.
so, I try to use membase as database. but membase is cache. i afraid whether the data stored in membase is go away or not. can i use membase as databse ? it is safe?
thank you.
As long as you use Membase buckets (in Membase there are memcached and Membase buckets) then everything will be persisted to disk. If the items on disk are greater than the number of item that can fit into memory then only the most recently used items will be held in memory.
Also, it is recommended that your working set fits into memory. If your working set is greater than can fit into memory then Membase will begin to take a performance hit.
Membase is also very safe. It runs in many mission-critical production systems. Zynga for example uses it to power Farmville.
Can I set up a replica set in MongoDB 1.8 using servers with different amounts of RAM?
server1: 5gb
server2: 2gb
server3: 4gb
If yes, what are the pros and cons?
No, you do not need equal RAM. (Yes, you could set up a replica set as described.)
MongoDB uses memory-mapped files for all caching, which means that cache paging is handled by the operating system. The replicas with more memory will keep more of the database in memory; those with less will page more to disk.
MongoDB will eventually bring the entire database into memory if it can. If you're using two replicas for reads and one for writes, you might want to use the 5gb and 4gb machines for reads, so they are more likely to be hitting RAM.
Yes, you can configure a replica set this way.
If yes, what are the pros and cons?
Here's a doc explaining the major features of replica sets. Let's take a look at these in light of the RAM differences.
Pros:
More computers means better data redundancy. Having that 2GB node at least means that you have one more copy of the data.
Having a full 3 nodes on a replica set makes it easier to take one down for maintenance.
Cons:
Having servers of different sizes isn't great for automated failover. Let's say that your 5GB server is the primary. What happens when it goes down and the 2GB server wins the election? You still have automated fail-over, but your performance has probably dropped dramatically.
Read scaling may not work very well. Depending on your read patterns, sending reads to the 2GB server may result in lots of extra disk hits and slower performance.
So, the big problem here, is really one of performance. If you're just doing this for a dev setup, then it will basically work. But in production you run the risk of completely tanking your app. If your app is used to living on 4GB+ of RAM and then suddenly drops to 2GB, it may become unusable.
Most production setups want to fail over to another "equally-powered" computer.
I'm working on a desktop application that will produce several in-memory datasets as an intermediary before being committed to a database.
Obviously I'm going to try to keep the size of these to a minimum, but are there any guidelines on thresholds I shouldn't cross for good functionality on an 'average' machine?
Thanks for any help.
There is no "average" machine. There is a wide range of still-in-use computers, including those that run DOS/Win3.1/Win9x and have less than 64MB of installed RAM.
If you don't set any minimum hardware requirements for your application, at least consider the oldest OS you're planning to support, and use the official minimum hardware requirements of that OS to gain a lower-bound assesment.
Generally, if your application is going to consume a considerable amount of RAM, you may want to let the user configure the upper bounds of the application's memory management mechanism.
That said, if you decide to dynamically manage the upper bounds based on realtime data, there are quite a few things you can do.
If you're developing a windows application, you can use WMI to get the system's total memory amount, and base your limitations on that value (say, use up to 5% of the total memory).
In .NET, if your data structures are complex and you find it hard to assess the amount of memory you consume, you can query the Garbage Collector for the amount of allocated memory using GC.GetTotalMemory(false), or use a System.Diagnostics.Process object.