Note: I have done a little reformatting and added some additional information.
Please take a look at this: Question_Answer
I want to ask - with DSE 5.0 and the upcoming changes that were mentioned at C* Summit this year for 5.1 and 5.2, will the same advice be useful?
Our use case is:
The platform MUST be available at all times. (Cassandra)
The data must be searchable. (SOLR / Lucene)
The platform MUST provide analytics / Data Warehousing / BI etc (Graph / Spark)
All of that is possible in a single product offering thanks to DSE! Thank you DataStax!
But our amount of data stored and our transaction count are VERY modest.
Our specification is for 100 concurrent sessions within the application - which of course doesn't even translate to 100 concurrent DB requests / operations.
For the most part our application resembles an everyday enterprise CRUD application.
While not ridiculous, AWS instances aren't exactly free.
Having a separate cluster for each workload (with enough replication for continuous availability), will be a cost issue for us.
While I understand, a proof of concept can offer some help - but without a real workload / real users - passing through the services / applications - in ways that only a "production" system and rogue users : can really provide an insight for. The best you can do is "loaded" functional testing.
In short, we're a little stuck here from a platform perspective.
We're, initially, thinking of having:
2 data centres for geographic isolation
2 racks per DC
2 nodes per Rack
RF of 3
CL of local_quorum
If we find we're hitting performance issues, we can scale out - add an extra rack or extra nodes to the initial 2 racks.
As for V-nodes or number of tokens, we have no idea.
The documentation for DSE Search says V-nodes adds 30% overhead, so it sounds like you shouldn't use V-nodes, but then in a table in the documentation it also says to use 16 or 32. How can it be both?
If we can successfully run all workloads on a single node (our requirements are genuinely minimal), do we run with V-nodes (16 or 32) or do we run a single token?
Lastly, is there another alternative?
Can you have Nodes with different workloads in the same data centre? Where individual nodes are set up with RAM / CPU requirements for a specific workload?
Assuming our 4 node per data centre (as a starting place only - we have no idea whether or not you can successfully run Search on a single node / or Spark on a single node)
Node 1: Just Cassandra
Node 2 : Cassandra and Search
Node 3 : Cassandra and Graph
Node 4 : Cassandra and Spark
If Search needs 64GB RAM - so be it... but the Cassandra only node could well work with just 8 or 16.
So we can cater, in terms of CPU and memory per workload type - but still only have a single DC. (We'll have 2 for redundancy - but effectively it is a single DC installation : mirrored)
Thanks in advance for your help.
Vnodes adds an additional overhead for the scatter-gather part of the search solution. In some benchmarks that's been as high as 30%. Some customers are willing to live with that overhead and want to use vnodes due to the benefits of dynamic scaling.
If you have or are planning a small cluster - and won't need to scale it on the fly - then I would definitely recommend sticking with single tokens. The hidden benefit of that approach, is that your repairs will be slightly faster also. This helps with Search as you are reading at the equivalent of CL.ONE.
It is possible to run all the features on the same DC (Search, Analytics and now Graph) but you will find that the overheads go up. You will need larger nodes with more memory and cpu resources to cope with the processing load. I'd probably start with 128 Gb of ram and go from there. I guess if your load is really light you might get away with less. As with everything benchmarking at the scale you're intending to run is key.
As an aside I'm not totally clear on your intentions re RF. You kind of imply 2 nodes and RF=3. I'm guessing it's just phrasing, but if not - it's worth noting you want at least as many nodes as the RF for best coverage!
Related
I have two controllers accessing distributed database. I am receiving some data from a device to the controllers and i store them in Cassandra database. I use Docker to install cassandra
The node 1 is on controller 1 and node 2 is on controller 2. I would like to know if there is a possibility to measure the time it takes to update the node 2, when i receive data at node 1.
I would like to draw a graph with it. So could someone tell me how do i measure it.
Thanks
Cassandra provides tools and insights of all this internal information with the nodetool gossipinfo command and cqlsh tracing.
In the scenario that you are proposing, I'm inferring that you are using a Replication Factor of 2, and that you are interested in the exact time that is taking to have the information written in all the nodes, you can measure the time required to do a write with the consistency level set to ALL, and compare it with similar writes using the consistency level of ONE. The difference of the times will be the propagation from one node to the other.
Finally, if you are interested in measuring the performance of the queries in Cassandra, there are several tools that enhance the tracing functionality, in our team we have been using zipkin with good results.
In distributed storage, to avoid data disasters, we need multiple copies of data.
However, why the total copy quantity is preferred as 3 by default instead of 2?
Two copies will save nearly 50% storage requirements.
What's the main reason of choosing 3 copies?
When using two copies of data, and they differ which version do you choose? The third acts as a tie breaker.
As to why they would differ, if one computer were down for a bit—or even if they can't talk to each other—their data would differ unless the system stops accepting writes. With three computers, though, if one is down or separated from the others, the other two can still accept data without fear of the scenario in the first paragraph. (Unless you have correlated failures, which you should still plan for.)
Update. Generally you'll find that distributed algorithms use a Quorum-based system for ensuring writes. In most it's a simple majority, meaning that at least ceil(n/2) of the nodes must have the value before it is durably written. After that, you are guaranteed that nothing can un-write the value because you cannot get ceil(n/2) more nodes to oust the decision. In a two-node system ceil(n/2) = 2; so if one of the nodes goes down, you cannot accept a write anymore. But in a three node system, ceil(n/2) = 2 still, so one node can go down and the system can still accept writes.
Really it's a question of durability vs cost vs latency. The more nodes you throw at your system, the more likely you'll not lose data. One node is fairly ephemmeral; two nodes slightly less ephemeral. Three nodes is pretty good, and many systems stop there. But systems that need higher durability will have 5, 7, or 9 nodes required.
I work on one of the most reliable systems on the internet and we use 5 nodes in the quorum with up to 16 more nodes as hot backups. For us the cost is little compared to the required durability; we chose to use 5 nodes in the quorum for latency sake with the backups for a little boost in durability and to take some read pressure of the quorum.
Because cost increase is not that significant compared to significant improvement in redundancy.
Adding to Michael's answer in this question, three is chosen because it provides a very simple level of fault tolerance. This is called 't fault-tolerance' in the presence of Byzantine faults, where t is 1. That is at most 1 of those data copies can go stale/corrupt/wrong without bringing down the system.
t is usually chosen before hand as an SLA for the system in question, or via empirical evidence. Given a value of t one needs 2*t+1 copies to handle fault tolerance.
I need to build and analyze a complex network using neo4j and would like to know what is the recommended hardware for the following setup:
There are three types of nodes.
There are three types of relationships.
At the steady state, the network will contain about 1M nodes of each type and about the same amount of edges
Every day, about 500K relationships are updated and 100K nodes and edges are added. Approximately the same amount of nodes/edges are also removed.
Network update will be done in daily batches and we can tolerate update times of 1-2 hours
Once the system is up, we will quire the database for shortest paths between different nodes. Not more than 500K times per day. We can live with batch query.
Most probably, I'll use REST API
I think you should take a look at Neo4j Hardware requirements.
For the server you're talking about, I think the first thing needed will obviously be a large bandwidth. If your requests are done in a short time, it'll be needed.
Apart from that, a "normal" server should be enough :
8 or more cores
At least 24Go ram
At least 1To SSD storage (this one is important and expensive)
A good bandwidth (like 1Gbps)
By the way, it's not a programming question, so I think you should have asked this to Neo4j.
You can use Neo4j Hardware sizing calculator for rough estimation of the HW needs.
Azure embraces the notion of elastic scaling and I've been able to acheive this with my Worker Roles. However, when it comes to my Web Roles (e.g. MVC Apps) I am not sure what to monitor (or how) to determine when its a good time to increase (or descrease) the number of running instances. I'm assuming I need to monitor one or many Performance Counters but not sure where to start.
Can anyone recommend a best practice for assessing an MVC Web Role instances load relative to scaling decisions?
This question is a bit open-ended, as monitoring is typically app-specific. Having said that:
Start with simple measurements that you'd look at on a local server, representing KPIs for your app. For instance: Maybe look at network utilization. This TechNet article describes performance counters collected by System Center for Windows Azure. For instance:
ASP.NET Applications Requests/sec
Network Interface Bytes
Received/sec
Network Interface Bytes Sent/sec
Processor % Processor Time Total
LogicalDisk Free Megabytes
LogicalDisk % Free Space
Memory Available Megabytes
You may also want to watch # of requests queued and request wait time.
Network utilization is interesting, since your NIC provides approx. 100Mbps per core and could end up being a bottleneck even when CPU and other resources are underutilized. You may need to scale out to more instances to handle high-bandwidth scenarios.
Also: I tend to give less importance to CPU utilization, even though it's so easy to measure (and shows up so frequently in examples). Running a CPU at near capacity is a good thing usually, since you're paying for it and might as well use as much as possible.
As far as decreasing: This needs to be handled a bit more carefully. Windows Azure compute is billed by the hour. If, say, you scale out to an extra instance at 11:50 and scale in again at 12:10, you've just incurred two cpu-hours. Also: You don't want to scale out, then take new measurements and deciding you can now scale back again (effectively creating a constant pulse of adding and decreasing instances). To make things easier, consider the Autoscaling Application Block (WASABi), found in the Enterprise Library. This has all the scale rules baked in (such as the ones I just mentioned) and is very straightforward to use.
I have already asked a question regarding a simple fault-tolerant soft real-time web application for a pizza delivery shop.
I have gotten really nice comments and answers there, but I disagree in that it is a true web service. Rather than a web service, it is more of a real-time system to accept orders from customers, control the dispatching of these orders and control the vehicles that deliver those orders in real time.
Moreover, unlike a 'true' web service this system is not intended to have many users - it is just a few dispatchers (telephone operators) and a few delivery drivers that will use it (as for now I have no requirement to provide direct access to the service to the actual customers; only the dispatchers and delivery drivers will have the direct access).
Hence this question is a bit more general.
I have found that in order to make a right choice for a NoSQL data storage option for this application first thing that I have to do is to make a choice between CA, PA and CP according to the CAP theorem.
Now, the Building Web Applications with Erlang book says that "while it [Mnesia] is not a SQL database, it is a CA database like a SQL database. It will not handle network partition". The same book says that the CouchDB database is a PA database.
Having that in mind, I think that the very first thing that I need to do with my application is to decide what the 'fault-tolerance' term means regarding to CAP.
The simple requirement that I have is to have the application available 24/7(R1). The other one is that there is no need to scale, the application will have a very modest amount of users (it is probably not possible to have thousands of dispatchers) (R2).
Now, does R1 require the application to provide Consistency, Availability and Partition Tolerance and with what priorities?
What type of data storage option will better handle the following issues:
Providing 24/7 availability for a dispatcher (a person who accepts phone calls from customers and who uses a CRM) to look up customer records and put orders into the system;
Looking up current ongoing served orders and their status (placed, baking, dispatched, delivering, delivered) in real time;
Keep track of all working vehicles' locations and their payloads in real time;
Recover any part of the system after system crash or network crash to continue providing 1,2 and 3;
To sum it up: What kind of Data Storage (CA, PA or CP) will suite the system described above better? What kind of Data Storage will better satisfy the R1 requirement?
For your 24/ requirement you are searching a database with (High) Availability because you want your requests to succeed everytime (even if they are only error results).
A netsplit would bringt your whole system down, when you have no partition tolerance
Consistency is nice to have, but you can only have 2 of 3.
Your best bet will be a PA solution. I highly recomment a solution which has been inspired by Amazon Dynamo. The best known dynamo implementations are riak and couchdb. Riak even allows you to change PA to some other form by tuning the read and write replicas.
First, don't confuse CAP "Availability" with "High Availability". They have nothing to do with each other. The A in CAP simply means "All DB nodes can answer queries". To get High Availability, you must be in multiple data centers, you must have robust documented procedures for maintenance, expansion, etc. None of that depends on your CAP choice.
Second, be realistic about your requirements. A stock-trading application might have a requirement for 100% uptime, because every second of downtime could loose millions of dollars. On the other hand, I'm guessing your pizza joint might loose tens of dollars for every minute it's down. So it doesn't make sense to spend millions trying to keep it up. Try to compute your actual costs.
Third, always evaluate your choice vs mainstream. You could just go CA (MySQL) and quickly fail-over to the slaves when problems happen. Be realistic about the costs (and risks) of building on new technology. If you really expect your system to run for 5 years without downtime, ask for proof that someone else has run that database for 5 years without downtime.
If you go "AP" and have remote people (drivers, etc.) then you'll need to write an app that stores their data on their phone and sends it in the background (with retries). Of course, you could do this regardless of weather your database was CA or AP.
If you want high uptimes, you can either:
Increase MTBF (Mean Time Between Failures) - Buy redundant power supplies, buy dual ethernet cards, etc..
Decrease MTTR (Mean Time To Recovery) - Just make sure when failure happens you can recover quickly. (Fail over to slave)
I've seen people spend tens of thousands of dollars on MTBF, only to be down for 8 hours while they restore their backup. It makes more sense to ensure MTTR is low before attacking MTBF.