I have a project to create a dashboard that will connect to existing systems as well as create new features based on combining data from the existing systems. For example, the dashboard will be able to generate "orders" containing data merged from "members" (MS Access DB), "employees" (MySQL DB) and "products" (flat file), and there will also be new attributes particular to "orders."
At first I thought it would be most efficient to have my application connect to each of the systems separately and perform cross-vendor joins between the different databases. But then I thought that creating a centralized/redundant db (built with scripts pushing and pulling data between the systems) might also be useful because it would empower some semi-technical staff to use products like OOBase, which can only make a single connection.
Are there any other advantages to creating a centralized/redundant DB like the one I'm talking about? Or are multiple direct connections the best approach?
Thanks in advance for any tips.
To give you are short answer: yes, you want a central data storage.
You don't want to run complex reports on your live database. As your live database will grow you will want to do some housekeeping and clean it up but keep the data for analysi.
You will also want the data to be aggregated so you could perform historical analysis.
For the data which comes from different sources some clean-up will be required. And you will probably need to know how to link your data together and there are quire a lot of things like that you will have to be aware of to do the job properly.
You might consider reading on data warehousing (wikipedia) and business intelligence (wikipedia).
If you want to have 'new features' added to this system you could also look up orchestration (wikipedia. It will allow you to link your heterogeneous business processes together.
All of these are quite specialized and complex disciplines on their own so you might want to have a specialist to consult you.
Be very, very careful to copy lots of data around. If you do, here are some important guidelines:
Make sure that one system is defined as the master and no other system may tamper with the data.
Always copy data from the master to the slaves.
When you copy the data, use a checksum of some kind to make sure all data has been copied. Make sure you can handle "yesterday, the copy failed".
If a slave must make a change, push the change to the master and then use the standard "update" path to merge it back to the slave. Avoid "save change on slave and update the master some time in the future".
Related
how do you handle user upload folders like fileadmin and the DB with ddev and TYPO3.
I would like to have the DB and media files outside of my ddev container as both can get really large over time and I don't want to sync them every time. Or do I have to?
It would be awesome to just have them on a central server where every developer has access to.
For the DB it is not the problem.
But as far as I know to mount the fileadmin outside of the ddev container is not possible.
How do you handle the DB and media files?
For the companies I've worked for data for a development environment is either (1) rsynced from a central server or (2) have a minimal data set which is added to the git repository.
In case of option 1 there's usually an automated process which pulls data from production servers and cleans it up (removing cache/logs, anonymize any sensitive data, etc). The advantages of this option are you have (mostly) real data for your development environment and there's no need to manually manage a separate data set. The disadvantages are you might not have data to test all situations, data can get large and there's a chance you might miss sensitive data which could lead to data leaks.
In case of option 2 there's usually a way to generate random data to get a more filled development environment. The advantages to this option are you have a clean development environment, the data set is as small as it can be and there's no chance of leaking sensitive data. The disadvantages are you need to maintain a separate minimal data set, problems related to specific data might be harder to debug.
Personally I think 2 is the better option. You should not need production data for development as long as you have a good way to create realistic random data. Production data might actually miss a lot of situations you do need for development. Some content elements might not always be used, things like empty news lists might not happen (often) in production, etc. I also don't want to have to download several Gb of data if I have to change a small thing in a project I don't have locally yet.
This is just a general question, not too technical. We have this use-case wherein we are to load hundreds of thousands of records to an existing Neo4j database. Now, we cannot afford to make the database offline because of users who are accessing it. I know that Neo4j requires exclusive lock on the database while it's performing batch updates. Is there a way around my problem? I don't want to lock my database while doing updates. I still want my users to access it - even for just read-only access. Thanks.
Neo4j never requires exclusive lock on the database. It selectively locks portions of the graph that are affected by mutating operations. So there are some things you can do to achieve your goal. Are you a Neo4j Enterprise customer?
Option 1: If so, you can run your batch insert on the master node and route users to slaves for reading.
Option 2: Alternatively, you could do a "blue-green" style deployment where you:
take a backup (B) of your existing database (A), then mark the A database read-only
apply your batch inserts onto B either by starting a separate instance, or even better, using BatchInserters. That way, you'll insert your hundreds of thousands in a few seconds
start the new database B
flip a switch on a load-balancer, so that users start to be routed to the B instead of A
take A down
(Please let me know if you need some tips how to make a read-only DB.)
Option 3: If you can only afford to run one instance at any one time, then there are techniques you can employ to let your users access the database as usual and still insert large volumes of data. One of them could be using a single-threaded "writer" with a queue that batches write operations. Because one thread only ever writes to the database, you never run into deadlock scenarios and people can happily read from the database. For option 3, I suggest using GraphAware Writer.
I've assumed you are not trying to insert hundreds of thousands of nodes to a running Neo4j database using Cypher. If you are, I would start there and change it to use Java APIs or the BatchInserter API.
I have been learning RavenDB recently and would like to put it to use.
I was wondering what advice or suggestions people had around building the system in a way that is ready to scale, specifically sharding the data across servers, but that can start on a single server and only grow as needed.
Is it advisable, or even possible, to create multiple databases on a single instance and implement sharding across them. Then to scale it would simply be a matter of spreading these databases across the machines?
My first impression is that this approach would work, but I would be interested to hear the opinions and experiences of others.
Update 1:
I have been thinking more on this topic. I think my problem with the "sort it out later" approach is that it seems to me difficult to spread data evenly across servers in that situation. I will not have a string key which I can range on (A-E,F-M..) it will be done with numbers.
This leaves two options I can see. Either break it at boundaries, so 1-50000 is on shard 1, 50001-100000 is on shard 2, but then with a site that ages, say like this one, your original shards will be doing a lot less work. Alternatively a strategy that round robins the shards and put the shard id into the key will suffer if you need to move a document to a new shard, it would change the key and break urls that have used the key.
So my new idea, and again I am putting it out there for comment, would be to create from day one a bucketting system. Which works like stuffing the shard id into the key, but you start with a large number, say 1000 which you distribute evenly between. Then when it comes time to split the load into a shard, you can say move buckets 501-1000 to the new server and write your shard logic that 1-500 goes to shard 1 and 501-1000 goes to shard 2. Then when a third server comes online you pick another range of buckets and adjust.
To my eye this gives you the ability to split into as many shards as you originally created buckets, spreading the load evenly both in terms of quantity and age. Without having to change keys.
Thoughts?
It is possible, but really unnecessary. You can start using one instance, and then scale when necessary by setting up sharding later.
Also see:
http://ravendb.net/documentation/docs-sharding
http://ayende.com/blog/4830/ravendb-auto-sharding-bundle-design-early-thoughts
http://ravendb.net/documentation/replication/sharding
I think a good solution is to use virtual shards. You can start with one server and point all virtual shard to a single server. Use module on the incremental id to evenly distribute the rows across the virtual shards. With Amazon RDS you have the option to turn a slave into a master, so before you change the sharding configuration (point more virtual shards to the new server), you should make a slave a master, then update your configuration file, and then delete all the records on the new master using modulu that doesn't comply with the shard range that you use for the new instance.
You also need to delete rows from the original server, but by now all the new data with IDs that are modulu based on the new virtual shard ranges will point to the new server. So you actually don't need to move the data, but take advantage of Amazon RDS server promotion feature.
You can then make replica off the original server. You create a unique ID as: Shard ID + Table Type ID + Incremental number. So when you query the database, you know to which shard to go and fetch the data from.
I don't know how it's possible to do it with RavenDB, but it can work pretty well with Amazon RDS, because Amazon already provide you with replication and server promotion feature.
I agree that their should be a solution that right from the start offer seamless sociability and not telling the developer to sort the problems out when those occur. Furthermore, I've find out that many NoSQL solution that evenly distribute data across shards need to work within a cluster with low latency. So you have to take that into consideration. I've tried using Couchbase with two different EC2 machines (not in a dedicated Amazon cluster) and data balancing was very very slow. That adds to the overall cost too.
I also want to add that what pinterest had done to solve their scalability issues, using 4096 virtual shards.
You should also need to look into paging issues with many NoSQL databases. With that approach you can page data quite easily, but maybe not in the most efficient way, because you might need to query several databases. Another problem is changing schema. Pinterest solved this by putting all the data in a JSON Blob in MySQL. When you want to add a new column, you create a new table with the new column data + key, and can use Index on that column. If you need to query the data, for example, by email, you can create another table with the emails + ID and put an index on the email column. Counters are another problem , I mean atomic counters. So it's better taking those counters out from the JSON and put them in a column so you can increment the counter value.
There are great solutions out there, but at the end of the day you find out that they can be very expensive. I preferred spending time on building my own sharding solution and prevent myself the headache later on. If you choose the other path, there are plenty of companies waiting for you to get into trouble and ask for quite a lot of money to solve your problems. Because at the moment that you need them, they know that you will pay everything to make your project work again. That's from my own experience, that's why I am breaking my head to build my own sharding solution using your approach, which also be much cheaper.
Another option is to use middleware solutions for MySQL like ScaleBase or DBshards. So you can continue working with MySQL, but at the time you need to scale, they have well proven solution. And the costs might be much lower then the alternative.
Another tip: when you create your config for shards, put a write_lock attribute that accepts false or true. So when it false, data won't be written to that shard, so when you fetch the list of shards for specific table type (ie. users), it will be written only to the other shards for that same type. This is also good for backup, so you can show a friendly error for visitors when you want to lock all the shard when backing up all the data to get a point-in-time snapshots of all the shards. Although I think you can send a global request for snapshoting all the databases with Amazon RDS and using point-in-time backup.
The thing is that most companies won't spend time working with a DIY sharding solution , they will prefer paying for ScaleBase. Those solution comes from single developers that can afford paying for a scalable solution from the start, but want to rest assured that when they reach to the point they need it, they have a solution. Just look at the prices out there and you can figure out that it will cost you A LOT. I will gladly share my code with you once I'm done. You are going with the best path in my opinion, it's all depends on your application logic. I model my database to be simple, no joins, not complicated aggregation queries - this solves many of my problems. In the future you can use Map Reduce to solve those big data queries needs.
I am building an app that is fast moving into production and I am concerned about the possibility that due to hacking, some silly personal error (like running rake db:schema:load or rake db:rollback) or other circumstance we may suffer data loss in one database table or even across the system.
While I don't find it likely that the above will happen, I would be remiss in not being prepared in case it ever does.
I am using Heroku's PG Backups (which is to be replaced with something else this month), and I also run automated daily backups to S3: http://trevorturk.com/2010/04/14/automated-heroku-backups/, successfully generating .dump files.
What is the correct way to deal with data loss on a production app?
How would I restore the .dump file in case I need to? Can I do a selective restore if a small part of the system is hit?
In case a selective restore is not possible: assume one table loses data 4 hours after the last backup. Result => would fixing the lost table require rolling back 4 hours of users' activity? Any good solution to this?
What is the best way to support users through the inconvenience if something like this happens?
A full DR (disaster recovery) solution requires the following:
Multisite. If a fire, flood, Osama Bin Laden or whathaveyou strikes the Amazon (or is it Salesforce?) data center that Heroku uses, you want to be sure that your data is safe elsewhere.
On-going replication of the data to a separate site (or sites). That means that every transaction that's written to your database on one site, is replicated within seconds to the mirror database on the other site. Most RDBMS's have mechanisms to let you do a master-slave replication like that.
The same goes for anything you put on a filesystem outside of the database, such as images, XML configuration files etc. S3 is a good solution here - they replicate everything to multiple data centers for you.
I won't hurt to create periodic (daily or so) dumps of the database and store them separately (e.g. on S3). This helps you recover from data corruption that propagates to the slave DBs.
Automate the process of data recovery. You want this to just work when you need it.
Test everything. Ideally, you want to automate the test process and run it periodically to ensure that your backups can restore. Netflix Chaos Monkey is an extreme example of this.
I'm not sure how you'd implement all this on Heroku. A complete solution is still priced out of reach for most companies - we're running this across our own data centers (one in the US, one in EU) and it costs many millions. Work according to the 80-20 rule - on-going backup to a separate site, plus a well tested recovery plan (continuously test your ability to recover from backups) covers 80% of what you need.
As for supporting users, the best solution is simply to communicate timely and truthfully when trouble happens and make sure you don't lose any data. If your users are paying for your service (i.e. you're not ad-supported), then you should probably have an SLA in place.
About backups, you cannot be sure at 100 percent every time that no data will be lost. The best is to test it on another server. You must have at leat two types of backup :
A database backup, like pg-dump. A dump is uniquely SQL commands so you can use it to recreate the whole database, just a table, or just a few rows. You loose the data added in the meantime.
A code backup, for example a git repository.
in addition to Hartator's answer:
use replication if your DB offers it, e.g. at least master/slave replication with one slave
do database backups on a slave DB server and store them externally (e.g. scp or rsync them out of your server)
use a good version control system for your source code, e.g. Git
use a solid deploy mechanism, such as Capistrano and write your custom tasks, so nobody needs to do DB migrations by hand
have somebody you trust check your firewall setup and the security of your system in general
The DB-Dumps contain SQL-commands to recreate all tables and all data... if you were to restore only one table, you could extract that portion from a copy of the dump file and (very carefully) edit it and then restore with the modified dump file (for one table).
Always restore first to an independent machine and check if the data looks right. e.g. you could use one Slave server, take if offline, then restore there locally and check the data. Good if you have two slaves in your system, then the remaining system has still one master and one slave while you restore to the second slave.
To simulate a fairly simple "total disaster recovery" on Heroku, create another Heroku project and replicate your production application completely (except use a different custom domain name).
You can add multiple remote git targets to a single git repository so you can use your current production code base. You can push your database backups to the replicated project, and then you should be good to go.
The only step missing from this exercise verses a real disaster recovery is assigning your production domain to the replicated Heroku project.
If you can afford to run two copies of your application in parallel, you could automate this exercise and have it replicate itself on a regular basis (e.g. hourly, daily) based on your data loss tolerance.
At my new company, they keep all data associated with the data warehouse, including import, staging, audit, dimension and fact tables, together in the same physical database.
I've been a database developer for a number of years now and this consolidation of function and form seems counter to everything I know.
It seems to make security, backup/restore and performance management issues more manually intensive.
Is this something that is done in the industry? Are there substantial reasons for doing or not doing it?
The platform is Netezza. The size is in terabytes, hundreds of millions of rows.
What I'm looking to get from answers to this question is a solid understanding of how right or wrong this path is. From your experience, what are the issues I should be focused on arguing if this is a path that will cause trouble for us down the road. If it is no big deal, then I'd like to know that as well.
In general I would recommend using separate databases. This is the configuration I have always seen used in production and it really makes a lot of sense since - as you mentioned - both databases have fundamentally different purposes / usage patterns / etc.
Edit
If you're using one physical server, the fewer instances on that server the simpler the management and the more efficient the process.
If you put TWO instances on the same Physical Server you get:
Negatives:
Half the memory to use
Twice the count of database process
Positives:
You could take the entire staging db down without affecting the DW
So which is more precious to you, outage windows or CPU and Memory?
On the same the physical server multiple instances make performance management issues MUCH more manual to solve. If you look at the health of one of the instances, it might look fine but users are reporting poor performance, so you have to look at the next instance to see if the problem may be coming from there... and so on per instance.
Security is also harder with more than one instance. At best it's just as hard as a single instance but it's never easier. You'll have two admin accounts (SYS or something), Duplicate process accounts, etc.
Tell us why you think it's better to have more than one instance.
ORIGINAL POST
Can we be clear on terms. When you say "in the same Database" do you mean to say the same instance, or the same physical server. If you did move the staging to a new instance would it reside on the same physical hardware?
I think people get a little too hung up on instances. If you're going to put two instances on the same piece of hardware, you're only doubling the number of everything to very little advantage. All the server processes will be running twice... all the memory pools will be cut in half.
so let's say you really did mean two separate physical boxes...
Let's say you buy 2 12-way boxes (just say). When you're staging db server is done for the day, those 12 CPU's are wasting away. When your users pack up and go home, your prod DW CPUs are wasting away. CPU cycles are perishable, you can't get them back. BUT, if you had one 24 way box... then the staging DB COULD use 20 CPUs at night for some excellent Parallel Execution for building summary tables and your users will have double the capacity for processes during the day.
so let's say you meant the same hardware.
"It seems to make security, backup/restore and performance management issues more manually intensive."
Guaranteed that performance issues are harder to solve the more instances that share the same hardware. Guaranteed.
Security
What security do you do at the instance level?
Backup
What DW are you backing up at the instance level? You're not backing up tablespaces, but rather whole instances? Seems like that pattern will fail at a certain size.
PLATFORM: NETEZZA
Not familiar with the tool specifically. So if it's a single instance on a single box, then the division would seem more logical than physical and therefore the reasons they exist is for management, not performance. You don't increase your CPUs or memory by adding a database, right? So it doesn't seem like there's no performance upside to it. Each DB may be adding separate processes (performance hit), or it might be completely logical like schemas in Oracle. If each database is managed by new processes than data going between them will mean IPC.
Maybe the addition of the Netezza tag will get some traction.
We use databases for every segment (INVENTORY, CRM, BILLING...). There are no performance downsides and maintenance and overview is much better.
Better late than never, but for Netezza:
There are no performance hits while querying cross database. Netezza allows only SELECT operations cross database, no INSERT, UPDATE or DELETEstatements allowed.
This means you cannot do:
THISDB(ADMIN)=>INSERT INTO OTHERDB..TBL SELECT * FROM THISDBTABLE;
but you can do \c OTHERDB then
OTHERDB(ADMIN)=>INSERT INTO TBL SELECT * FROM THISDB..THISDBTABLE;
You are also not able to create a materialized view on a cross-database object, for example:
OTHERDB(ADMIN)=>CREATE MATERIALIZED VIEW BLAH AS SELECT * FROM THISDB..THISDBTABLE;
Administration might be where you will decide (though you probably already did long ago) on what kind of database(s) you'll create. Depending on your infrastructure, you might have a TEST/QA system and a PROD system on the same box, or on separate boxes.
You will gain speed in the load and the output if the tables are in the same schema (database). Obvious...but hey, I said it.
There is more overhead the more tables you put into one schema. Backups time, size of backups, ease of use.
Where I am, we have many multiple TB databases within one data-warehouse. Our rule of thumb is that a single loading process or a single report query should NOT have to span database. This keeps "like" tables together but gives some allowances for our backups and contingency processes. It also makes it a bit easier to "find" data.
For those processes that need to break this rule, we will either move data from one database to the other or allow the process to join across schemas.
I'm not as familiar with Netezza, so I'm not 100% sure what your options might be.
Few points for you to consider
a) If the data in one or more staging, audit, dimension and fact table has to be joined, you are better off keeping them in one database
b) Typically you will retain dimension tables and fact tables in the same database and distribute on most frequently joined columns to leverage "co-located join" functionality of Netezza
c) You should be able to use SQL grant permission to manage access to all objects (DB, tables, views etc)