I have approximately 20 workers that hit my RavenDb database 100 per minute. They hit the database for ETAGs of certain objects to see if those etags have changed. If they ETAGs do not change, they retrieve objects from local store in JSON format. However, if ETAGs change, they retrieve objects from the RavenDB database and then cache them to local store.
My problem is, even though the call to hit RavenDB for ETAG is very efficient and quick, this call is performed 3million times per day and ETAGs change maybe 100 times per day (across all calls). So, overall I'm doing 3M calls per day to catch those 100 updates to my objects.
Is there a way to setup in-memory RavenDb on the worker servers (read-only is fine) so that this is more efficient?
TIA
You can use Aggressive Caching to handle that, this way, RavenDB will cache the data locally, and the server will let it know when the etag has changed.
See:
http://ravendb.net/docs/article-page/3.5/Csharp/client-api/how-to/setup-aggressive-caching
Related
I have a site where you can list your car for sale. There is a list and a map with filtering on car types and other car specifications. My idea was to cache cars table and use that to filter on when user is searching for a car on the website. Currently, especially when zooming in/out on the map, each time user does that, http request is made and it's querying the database, and that can be slow and heavy on the server.
As an experiment with 1 000 items, I have cached map data (trimmed data with only basic info) and it's working fine. I was thinking of doing a basically copy of cars table instead with all needed joins added in Memory Cache and use that instead of querying the DB every request for both list and the map. I would have Cron Job every 5 minutes (as data can change, but it doesn't have to be immediate) to update Memory Cache with latest cars data from DB.
What would be the cons of using this approach in long term and for using it for example storing 100 000 records? Beside server needing more RAM, would there be any concerns about scalability or usability of this approach? Would it be better to use Redis instead?
I do have in place now "search as you type" service, but I don't really need that functionality as filtering is pretty exact, I have added it more as a caching server but I think I would be better off just using Memory Cache until a real need for that kind of service is required.
Thank you
Since memory isn’t infinite, we need to limit the number of items stored in the In-Memory cache.
MemoryCache VS Redis
MemoryCache
MemoryCache is embedded in the process , hence can only be used as a plain key-value store from that process.
Redis
Redis is a remote data structure server. It is certainly slower than just storing the data in local memory.
I conclude that MemoryCache is running in the web server of the current application, and it is limited by the performance of the web server. Of course, it will be very fast under the same configuration. I think the disadvantage is that the stored data cannot be shared with other applications.
If redis is used, reading data directly from memory is not as fast as memorycache, but it has high reliability and high scalability.
Related Post:
1. How to update redis after updating database?
2. how to keep caching up to date
3. How can MySQL update data in real time in redis cache?
We're starting to use a distributed caching strategy on top of our central RavenDb database.
As a part of this strategy, we're retrieving Etag of a document from RavenDb and a value of the object from local Azure blob storage cache.
Our objects are changed extremely infrequently (10-100 object changes per day) but are retrieved extremely frequently (about 5000 object retrievals a minute and growing)
This is a multi-threaded environment, and internal RavenDb cache is not big enough to store all objects in the AggresiveCache mode.
Anyway, we're seeing terrible times with retrieval of Etags from Raven. Between 1 and 10 seconds (!!!???) What are we doing wrong? This is the code
return _session.Advanced.DocumentStore.DatabaseCommands.Head(id).Etag;
You are making a request per call, which means that you have to pay a lot of the cost of already fetching the document.
It will likely be cheaper to just load the document directly instead of doing the Head
Imagine we have a web-site which sends write and read requests into some DB via Hibernate. I use Java, but it doesn't matter for this question.
Usually we want to read the fresh data from DB. But I want to introduce some delay between the written data becomes visible to reads just to increase the performance. I.e. I dont need to "publish" the rows inserted into DB immediately. Its OK for me to "publish" fresh data after some delay.
How can I achieve it?
As far as I understand this can be set up on several different tiers of my system.
I can cache some requests in front-end. Probably I should set up proxy server for this. But this will work only if all the parameters of the query match.
I can cache the read requests in Hibernate. OK, but can I specify or estimate the average time the read query will return stale data after some fresh insert occurred? In other words how can I control the delay time between fresh data becomes visible to the users?
Or may be I should use something like a memcached system instead of Hibernate cache?
Probably I can set something in DB. I dont know what should I do with DB. Probably I can ease the isolation level to burst the performance of my DB.
So, which way is the best one?
And the main question, of course: does the relaxation of requirements I introduce here may REALLY help to increase the performance of my system?
If I am reading your architecture correct you have client -> server -> database server
Answers to each point
This will put the burden on the client to implement the caching if you only use your own client I would go for this method. It will have the side effect of improving client performance possibly and put less load on the server and database server so they will scale better.
Now caching on the server will improve scalability of the database server and possibly performance in the client but will put a memory burden on the server. This would be my second option
Implement something in the database. At this point what are you gaining? the database server still has to do work to determine what rows to send back. And also you will get no scalability benefits.
So to sum up I would cache at the client first if you can if not cache at the server. Leave the DB out of the loop.
To answer your main question - caching is one of the most effective ways of increasing both performance and scalability of web applications which are constrained by database performance - your application may or may not fall into this category.
In general, I'd recommend setting up a load testing rig, and measure the various parts of your app to identify the bottleneck before starting to optimize.
The most effective cache is one outside your system - a CDN or the user's browser. Read up on browser caching, and see if there's anything you can cache locally. Browsers have caching built in as a standard feature - you control them via HTTP headers. These caches are very effective, because they stop requests even reaching your infrastructure; they are very efficient for static web assets like images, javascript files or stylesheets. I'd consider a proxy server to be in the same category. The major drawback is that it's hard to manage this cache - once you've said to the browser "cache this for 2 weeks", refreshing it is hard.
The next most effective caching layer is to cache (parts of) web pages on your application server. If you can do this, you avoid both the cost of rendering the page, and the cost of retrieving data from the database. Different web frameworks have different solutions for this.
Next, you can cache at the ORM level. Hibernate has a pretty robust implementation, and it provides a lot of granularity in your cache strategies. This article shows a sample implementation, including how to control the expiration time. You get a lot of control over caching here - you can specify the behaviour at the table level, so you can cache "lookup" data for days, and "transaction" data for seconds.
The database already implements a cache "under the hood" - it will load frequently used data into memory, for instance. In some applications, you can further improve the database performance by "de-normalizing" complex data - so the import routine might turn a complex data structure into a simple one. This does trade of data consistency and maintainability against performance.
I am using PHP's APC to store a large amount of information (with apc_fetch(), etc.). This information occasionally needs analyzed and dumped elsewhere.
The story goes, I'm getting several hundred hits/sec. These hits increase various counters (with apc_inc(), and friends). Every hour, I would like to iterate over all the values I've accumulated, and do some other processing with them, and then save them on disk.
I could do this as a random or time-based switch in each request, but it's a potentially long operation (may require 20-30 sec, if not several minutes) and I do not want to hang a request for that long.
I thought a simple PHP cronjob would do the task. However, I can't even get it to read back cahe information.
<?php
print_r(apc_cache_info());
?>
Yeilds a seemingly different APC memory segment, with:
[num_entries] => 1
(The single entry seems to be a opcode cache of itself)
While my webserver, powered by nginx/php5-fpm, yields:
[num_entries] => 3175
So, they are obviously not sharing the same chunk of memory. How can I either access the same chunk of memory in the CLI script (preferred), or if that is simply not possible, what would be the absolute safest way to execute a long running sequence on say, a random HTTP request every hour?
For the latter, would using register_shutdown_function() and immediately set_time_limit(0) and ignore_user_abort(true) do the trick to ensure execution completes and doesn't "hang" anyone's browser?
And yes, I am aware of redis, memcache, etc that would not have this problem, but I am stuck to APC for now as neither could demonstrate the same speed as APC.
This is really a design issue and a matter of selecting preferred costs vs. payoffs.
You are thrilled by the speed of APC since you do not spend time to persist the data. You also want to persist the data but now the performance hit is too big. You have to balance these out somehow.
If persistence is important, take the hit and persist (file, DB, etc.) on every request. If speed is all you care about, change nothing - this whole question becomes moot. There are cache systems with persistent storage that can optimize your disk writes by aggregating what gets written to disk and when but you will generally always have a payoff between the two with varying tipping points. You just have to choose which of those suits your objectives.
There will probably never exist an enduring, wholesome technological solution to the wolf being sated and the lamb being whole.
If you really must do it your way, you could have a cron that CURLs a special request to your application which would trigger persisting your cache to disk. That way you control the request, its timeout, etc., and don't have to worry about everything users might do to kill their requests.
Potential risks in this case, however, are data integrity (as you will be writing the cache to disk while it is being updated by other requests in the meantime) as well as requests being served while you are persisting the cache paying the performance hit of your server being busy.
Essentially, we introduced a bundle of hay to the wolf/lamb dilemma ;)
We're trying to add some kind of persistence in our app.
The app generates about 250 entries per second. Each of these entries belong to one of 2M files. For each file, we want to keep the last 10 entries, so we can look them up later.
The way our client application works :
it gets a stream of all the data
it fetches the right file (GET)
it adds the new content
it saves the file back (PUT)
We're looking for an efficient way to store this data that can scale horizontally as the amount of data we're getting is doubling every few weeks.
We initially looked at S3. It works fine, but becomes very expensive very fast (>$1000 monthly just in PUT operations!)
We then gave a shot at Riak. But it seems we can't get more than 60 write/sec on each node, which is very very slow.
Any other solution out there?
There are lots of knobs you can turn in Riak - ask the mailing list if you haven't already and we'll figure out a sane configuration for you. 60 writes/sec is not within the norm.
See: http://lists.basho.com/mailman/listinfo/riak-users_lists.basho.com
What about Hadoop's HDFS spread over Amazon EC2 instances? I know each instance has a good amount of storage space, and you don't have to pay for put/get, only the inbound transfer.
I would suggest looking at CloudIQ Storage from Appistry. Its a fully distributed file store. Its accessible via a REST-based API, and can run on commodity hardware. You can define the number of copies retained on a file by file basis. It supports an Eventually Consistent model so you can balance file consistency with performance.