I understand from the docs that replicated caches are implemented using partitioned caches where every key has a primary copy and is also backed up on all other nodes in the cluster & that when data is queried lookups would be made from both primary & backup on the node for serving the query.
But i see that the default cache write synchronization mode is PRIMARY_SYNC, where client will not wait for backups to be updated. Does that mean i have to explicitly set it to FULL_SYNC for replicated caches since responses rely on lookup of primary & backup?
The first option is to use 'FULL_SYNC' mode.
In that case, client request will wait for write to complete on all participating nodes (primaries and backups).
The second option, that can be used here, is to use 'PRIMARY_SYNC' and set 'CacheConfiguration#readFromBackup' flag to false (which is true by default).
Ignite will send the request to primary node and get the value from there.
Please see https://ignite.apache.org/releases/mobile/org/apache/ignite/configuration/CacheConfiguration.html
By the way, both options make sense for partitioned cache as well.
Related
Let's say I want to use a built-in solution such as Redis or Memcached to cache database rows (as an example), to avoid recurrent costly trips to the database.
For the sake of the argument, let's assume I have a TABLE(id, x, y) and that I want to cache all rows so I never have to read directly from the database.
Questions:
Consider the following case: NodeA tries to update a given row's field x while NodeB tries to update y, then both simultaneously try to update the cache line. If they try to "manually" update the field they just changed to the row in the cache, if we follow the typical last-write-wins, one of the fields is going to be discarded, which is catastrophic. This makes me think I need to always fill the cache's rows with a full row read from the database.
But this by itself won't necessarily help me. If NodeA writes to x and loads the entire row in memory and then NodeB writes to y and reads the entire row in memory, if NodeB writes to the cache before NodeA then NodeB's changes will be overwritten! This makes me believe I need to always somehow version the rows both in the DB and in the cache. Is this the case? Memcached seems to have a compare and set primitive, but I see no such thing in Redis.
Even if 1. and 2. are not an issue, I still need to guarantee that my write / read has read-after-write consistency, otherwise it may happen that what I'm reading and intending to put in the cache is not necessarily the most up-to-date version. If that's the case, how can I make sure of this? By requiring w + r > n?
This seems to be a very common use-case, I'd guess it's pretty much a solved problem. What can I try to resolve this?
Key value stores as redis support advance data structures, such as HASHs.
If you're doing partial updates to cached entities (only a set of fields is updated as part of the super set), and given your goal is to avoid time-consuming database reads, simply save the table entry as a HASH K/V pairs (using HSET) and the use HGETALL for reading.
Redis OPS are atomic by nature, so that should solve your problems, if I got them right.
On a side note, if you're caching an entire entity yet doing partial updates, you should consider a simpler caching approach, such as read-through (making cache validity a reader-only concern).
As opposed to Database accesses. Redis cache access from different location unless somehow serialized, will always have the potential of being out of order when it comes to distributed systems, as there's always the execution environment (network, threading) to introduce possible delays.
Doing read-through caching will ensure data is always updated after the most recent write without the need to synchronize anything else.
This is how Facebook solved the issue with Memcached: http://nil.csail.mit.edu/6.824/2020/papers/memcache-faq.txt.
The idea is to use the concept of a lease: when a request for a cached value is received and there is no data for such key, a lease token (64 bits id) is returned.
When the webserver fetches the data from the database it can then store the data in the cache with that token. Every time an invalidation request is invoked on a key, a new lease token is created, and as such, if a put is attempted for an old token, the put ends up rejected.
As far as I understand, it's not really possible to (easily) replicate this behavior with Redis without resorting to LUA scripts.
I have an Apache Geode setup, connected with external Postgres datasource. I have a scenario where I define an expiration time for a key. Let's say after T time the key is going to expire. Is there a way so that the keys which are going to expire can make a call to an external datasource and update the value incase the value has been changed? I want a kind of automatic syncing for my keys which are there in Apache Geode. Is there any interface which i can implement and get the desired behavior?
I am not sure I fully understand your question. Are you saying that the values in the cache may possibly be more recent than what is currently stored in the database?
Whether you are using Look-Aside Caching, Inline Caching, or even Near Caching, Apache Geode combined with Spring would take care of ensuring the cache and database are kept in sync, to some extent depending on the caching pattern.
With Look-Aside Caching, if used properly, the database (i.e. primary System of Record (SOR), e.g. Postgres in your case) should always be the most current. (Look-Aside) Caching is secondary.
With Synchronous Inline Caching (using a CacheLoader/CacheWriter combination for Read/Write-Through) and in particular, with emphasis on CacheWriter, during updates (e.g. Region.put(key, value) cache operations), the DB is written to first, before the entry is stored (or overwritten) in the cache. If the DB write fails, then the cache entry is not written or updated. This is true each time a value for a key is updated. If the key has not be updated recently, then the database should reflect the most recent value. Once again, the database should always be the most current.
With Asynchronous Inline Caching (using AEQ + Listener, for Write-Behind), the updates for a cache entry are queued and asynchronously written to the DB. If an entry is updated, then Geode can guarantee that the value is eventually written to the underlying DB regardless of whether the key expires at some time later or not. You can persist and replay the queue in case of system failures, conflate events, and so on. In this case, the cache and DB are eventually consistent and it is assumed that you are aware of this, and this is acceptable for your application use case.
Of course, all of these caching patterns and scenarios I described above assume nothing else is modifying the SOR/database. If another external application or process is also modifying the database, separate from your Geode-based application, then it would be possible for Geode to become out-of-sync with the database and you would need to take steps to identify this situation. This is rather an issue for reads, not writes. Of course, you further need to make sure that stale cache entries does not subsequently overwrite the database on an update. This is easy enough to handle with optimistic locking. You could even trigger a cache entry remove on an DB update failure to have the cache refreshed on read.
Anyway, all of this is to say, if you applied 1 of the caching patterns above correctly, the value in the cache should already be reflected in the DB (or will be in the Async, Write-Behind Caching UC), even if the entry eventually expires.
Make sense?
I'm quite new to Apache Ignite so please be gentle. My question is simple.
If I have a replicated cache using Apache Ignite. I write to this cache key 123. My cluster has 10 nodes.
First question is:
Does replicated cache mean that before the "put" call comes back the key 123 must be written to all 10 nodes? Or does the call come back immediately and the replication is done behind the scenes?
Second question is:
Lets say key 123 is written on Node 1. It's now being replicated to all other nodes. However a few microseconds later Node 2 tries to write key 123 with a different value. Do I now have a race condition? Or does Ignite somehow handles this situation in such a way where Node 2's attempt to write key 123 won't happen until Node 1's "put" has replicated across all nodes?
For some context, what I'm trying to build is a de-duplication system across a cluster of API machines. I was hoping that I would be able to create a hash of my API request (with only values that make the request unique) and write it to the Ignite Cache. The API request would only proceed if the cache does not already contain the unique hash (possibly created by a different API instance). Of course the cache would have an eviction policy to evict these cache keys after a few seconds because they won't be needed anymore.
REPLICATED cache is the same as PARTITIONED with infinite number of backups and some optimizations. So it has primary partitions that distributed across nodes according to affinity function.
Now when you perform update, request comes to primary node, and primary node, in it's turn, updates all backups. Property CacheConfiguration.setWriteSynchronizationMode() is responsible for the way in which entries will be updated. By default it's PRIMARY_SYNC, which means that thread which calls put() will wait only for primary partition update, and backups will be updated asynchronously. If you set it to FULL_SYNC, thread will be released only when all backups updated.
Answering your second question, there will not be a race condition, because all requests will come to primary node.
Additionally to your clarification, if backup node wasn't updated yet, get() request will go to primary node, so in PRIMARY_SYNC mode you'll never get null if primary partition has a value.
Good day!
Suppose we have a redis-master and several slaves. The master goal is to store all data while slaves are used for quering data for users. Hovewer quering is a bit complex and some temporary data needs to be stored. And also I want to cache the query result for a couple of minutes.
How should I configure replication to save temporary data and caches?
Redis slaves have optional support to accept writes, however you have to understand a few limitations of writable slaves before to use them, since they have non trivial issues.
Keys created on the slaves will not support expires. Actually in recent versions of Redis they appear to work but are actually leaked instead of expired, until the next time you resynchronize the slave with the master from scratch or issue FLUSHALL or alike. There are deep reasons for this issue... it is currently not clear if we'll deprecate writable slaves at all, find a solution, or deny expires for writable slaves.
You may want, anyway, to use a different Redis numerical DB (SELECT command) in order to store your intermediate data (you may use MULTI/.../MOVE/EXEC transaction in order to generate your intermediate results in the currently selected DB where data belongs, and MOVE the keys off to some other DB, so it will be clear if keys are accumulating and you can FLUSHDB from time to time).
The keys you create on your slave are volatile, they may go away in any moment when the master will resynchronize with the slave. Does not look like an issue for you since if they key is no longer there, you could recompute, but care should be take,
If you elect this slave into a master you have additional keys inside.
So there are definitely things to take in mind in this setup, however it is doable in some way. However you may want to consider alternative strategies.
Lua scripts on the slave side in order to filter your data inside Lua. Not as fast as Redis C commands often.
Precomputation of data directly in the actual data set in order to make your queries possible just using read only commands.
MIGRATE in order to migrate interesting keys from a slave to an instance (another master) designed specifically to perform post-computations.
Hard to tell what's the best strategy without in-depth analysis of the actual use case / problem, but I hope this general guidelines help.
I have an application that runs a single Membase server (1.7.1.1) that I use to cache data I'd otherwise fetch from our central SQL Server DB. I have one default bucket associated to the Membase server, and follow the traditional data-fetching pattern of:
When specific data is requested, lookup the relevant key in Membase
If data is returned, use it.
If no data is returned, fetch data from the DB
Store the newly returned data in Membase
I am looking to add an additional server to my default cluster, and rebalance the keys. (I also have replication enabled for one additional server).
In this scenario, I am curious as to how I can use the current pattern (or modify it) to make sure that I am not getting data out of sync when one of my two servers goes down in either an auto-failover or manual failover scenario.
From my understanding, if one server goes down (call it Server A), during the period that it is down but still attached to the cluster, there will be a cache key miss (if the active key is associated to Server A, not Server B). In that case, in the data-fetching pattern above, I would get no data returned and fetch straight from SQL Server. But, when I attempt to store the data back to my Membase cluster, will it store the data in Server B and remap that key to Server B on the next fetch?
I understand that once I mark Server A as "failed over", Server B's replica key will become the active one, but I am unclear about how to handle the intermittent situation when Server A is inaccessible but not yet marked as failed over.
Any help is greatly appreciated!
That's a pretty old version. But several things to clarify.
If you are performing caching you are probably using a memcached bucket, and in this case there is no replica.
Nodes are always considered attached to the cluster until they are explicitly removed by administrative action (autofailover attempts to automate this administrative action for you by attempting to remove the node from the cluster if it's determined to be down for n amount of time).
If the server is down (but not failed over), you will not get a "Cache Miss" per se, but some other kind of connectivity error from your client. Many older memcached clients do not make this distinction and simply return a NULL, False, or similar value for any kind of failure. I suggest you use a proper Couchbase client for your application which should help differentiate between the two.
As far as Couchbase is concerned, data routing for any kind of operation remains the same. So if you were not able to reach the item on Server A. because it was not available, you will encounter this same issue upon attempting to store it back again. In other words, if you tried to get data from Server A and it was down, attempting to store data to Server A will fail in the exact same way, unless the server was failed over between the last fetch and the current storage attempt -- in which case the client will determine this and route the request to the appropriate server.
In "newer" versions of Couchbase (> 2.x) there is a special get-from-replica command available for use with couchbase (or membase)-style buckets which allow you to explicitly read information from a replica node. Note that you still cannot write to such a node, though.
Your overall strategy seems very sane for a cache; except that you need to understand that if a node is unavailable, then a certain percentage of your data will be unavailable (for both reads and writes) until the node is either brought back up again or failed over. There is no