Say, we have two Hazelcast clusters located in two locations, namely London and Tokyo and we configure WAN replication in active-active mode to replicate a distributed map between them.
If one of the clusters, say London, is completely down. After resuming to services, we found that Hazelcast will not repopulate the data from Tokyo to London and leave London with an empty map.
My question is, if we want to repopulate the data to the downed site after coming back up, what can we do?
ps 1: Do you normally expect a distributed cache to behave like this?
ps 2: In this similar situation, what do you normally do to "recover"?
Thank you!!
You will have to provision data on startup. This is normally done using a database or a custom operation to send / retrieve the data.
Hazelcast does not provide a generic implementation since requirements are too diverse to just handle them all in a simple implementation, even WAN Replication needs are very different and the default implementation sometimes won't fit.
With Hazelcast 3.6 there is now a new feature called HotRestart which keeps a persistent snapshot of the dataset on (hopefully non-spinning) disk and can reload it almost immediately after cluster failures / restarts.
Related
Mirroring is replicating data between Kafka cluster, while Replication is for replicating nodes within a Kafka cluster.
Is there any specific use of Replication, if Mirroring has already been setup?
They are used for different use cases. Let's try to clarify.
As described in the documentation,
The purpose of adding replication in Kafka is for stronger durability and higher availability. We want to guarantee that any successfully published message will not be lost and can be consumed, even when there are server failures. Such failures can be caused by machine error, program error, or more commonly, software upgrades. We have the following high-level goals:
Inside a cluster there might be network partitions (a single server fails, and so forth), therefore we want to provide replication between the nodes. Given a setup of three nodes and one cluster, if server1 fails, there are two replicas Kafka can choose from. Same cluster implies same response times (ok, it also depends on how these servers are configured, sure, but in a normal scenario they should not differ so much).
Mirroring, on the other hand, seems to be very valuable, for example, when you are migrating a data center, or when you have multiple data centers (e.g., AWS in the US and AWS in Ireland). Of course, these are just a couple of use cases. So what you do here is to give applications belonging to the same data center a faster and better way to access data - data locality in some contexts is everything.
If you have one node in each cluster, in case of failure, you might have way higher response times to go, let's say, from AWS located in Ireland to AWS in the US.
You might claim that in order to achieve data locality (services in cluster one read from kafka in cluster one) one still needs to copy the data from one cluster to the other. That's definitely true, but the advantages you might get with mirroring could be higher than those you would get by reading directly (via an SSH tunnel?) from Kafka located in another data center, for example single connections down, clients connection/session times longer (depending on the location of the data center), legislation (some data can be collected in a country while some other data shouldn't).
Replication is the basis of higher availability. You shouldn't use Mirroring to handle high availability in a context where data locality matters. At the same time, you should not use just Replication where you need to duplicate data across data centers (I don't even know if you can without Mirroring/an ssh tunnel).
I'm a newbie to Redis and I was wondering if someone could help me to understand if it can be the right tool.
This is my scenario:
I have many different nodes, everyone behaving like a master and accepting clients connections to read and write a few geographical data data and the timestamp of the incoming record.
Each master node could be hosted onto a drone that only randomly get in touch and can comunicate with others, accordind to network conditions; when this happens they should synchronize their data according to their age (only the ones more recent than a specified time).
Is there any way to achieve this by Redis or do I have to implement this feature at application level?
I tried master/slaves configuration without success and I was wondering if Redis Cluster can somewhat meet my neeeds.
I googled around, but what I found had not an answer good for me
https://serverfault.com/questions/717406/redis-multi-master-replication
Using Redis Replication on different machines (multi master)
Teo, as a matter of fact, redis don't have a multi master replication.
And the cluster shard it's data through different instances. Say you have only two redis instances. Instance1 will accept store and retrieve instance1 and instance2 data. But he will ask for, and store in, instance2 every key that does not belong to his shard.
This is not, I think, really what you want. You could give a try to PostgreSQL+BDR as PostgreSQL supports nosql store and BDR provides a real master master replication (https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/BDR_Project) if that's really what you need.
I work with both today (and also MongoDB). Each one with a different goal. Redis would provide a smaller overhead and memory use, fast connection and fast replication. But it won't provide multi master (if you really need it).
I am using redis version 2.8.3. I want to build a redis cluster. But in this cluster there should be multiple master. This means I need multiple nodes that has write access and applying ability to all other nodes.
I could build a cluster with a master and multiple slaves. I just configured slaves redis.conf files and added that ;
slaveof myMasterIp myMasterPort
Thats all. Than I try to write something into db via master. It is replicated to all slaves and I really like it.
But when I try to write via a slave, it told me that slaves have no right to write. After that I just set read-only status of slave in redis.conf file to false. Hence, I could write something into db.
But I realize that, it is not replicated to my master replication so it is not replicated to all other slave neigther.
This means I could'not build an active-active cluster.
I tried to find something whether redis has active-active cluster capability. But I could not find exact answer about it.
Is it available to build active-active cluster with redis?
If it is, How can I do it ?
Thank you!
Redis v2.8.3 does not support multi-master setups. The real question, however, is why do you want to set one up? Put differently, what challenge/problem are you trying to solve?
It looks like the challenge you're trying to solve is how to reduce the network load (more on that below) by eliminating over-the-net reads. Since Redis isn't multi-master (yet), the only way to do it is by setting up each app server with a master and a slave (to the other master) - i.e. grand total of 4 Redis instances (and twice the RAM).
The simple scenario is when each app updates only a mutually-exclusive subset of the database's keys. In that scenario this kind of setup may actually be beneficial (at least in the short term). If, however, both apps can touch all keys or if even just one key is "shared" for writes between the apps, then you'll need to bake locking/conflict resolution/etc... logic into your apps to consolidate local master and slave differences (and that may be a bit of an overkill). In either case, however, you'll end up with too many (i.e. more than 1) Redises, which means more admin effort at the very least.
Also note that by colocating app and database on the same server you're setting yourself for near-certain scalability failure. What will happen when you need more compute resources for your apps or Redis? How will you add yet another app server to the mix?
Which brings me back to the actual problem you are trying to solve - network load. Why exactly is that an issue? Are your apps so throughput-heavy or is the network so thin that you are willing to go to such lengths? Or maybe latency is the issue that you want to resolve? Be the case as it may be, I recommended that you consider a time-proven design instead, namely separating Redis from the apps and putting it on its own resources. True, network will hit you in the face and you'll have to work around/with it (which is what everybody else does). On the other hand, you'll have more flexibility and control over your much simpler setup and that, in my book, is a huge gain.
Redis Enterprise has had this feature for quite a while, but if you are looking for an open source solution KeyDB is a fork with Active Active support (called Active Replica).
Setting it up is just a little more work than standard replication:
Both servers must have "active-replica yes" in their respective configuration files
On server B execute the command "replicaof [A address] [A port]"
Server B will drop its database and load server A's dataset
On server A execute the command "replicaof [B address] [B port]"
Server A will drop its database and load server B's dataset (including the data it just transferred in the prior step)
Both servers will now propagate writes to each other. You can test this by writing to a key on Server A and ensuring it is visible on B and vice versa.
https://github.com/JohnSully/KeyDB/wiki/KeyDB-(Redis-Fork):-Active-Replica-Support
My company is about to write a new public facing website in SharePoint (so Windows Server 2008 RC2, SQL Server 2008 RC2, etc) and we're looking at using Amazon EC2 to host it. I've read and been told that instances can disappear (often through user-error, but also in batches), so I'm skeptical that EC2 is the best idea for us.
I've done research on the Amazon AWS site, but must confess that most of the terminology used is confusing, and Googling my questions often brought me here, so I thought I'd ask my questions here too and see if people can advise me.
1) It's critical that our website be available to the public as much as possible (the usual 99.9% up times apply). The Amazon EC2 Service Level Agreement commitment is 99.95% availability, which is fine, but what happens if we hit that 0.05% scenario? Would our E2 instance be lost? Can these be recovered? If so, what would we need to do to ensure that we recover to a not-too-old version of our site?
2) I've read about Amazon Elastic Block Store (EBS), and how this is persist independently from the lifetime of the instance. If I understand right, EBS is like having a hard-drive, so if the instance is lost we can start a new instance using our EBS to recover the latest version, while the 'local instance store' would be lost if the instance is lost as well. Is that right?
3) Are 'reserved instances' a more stable option? i.e. are they less likely to disappear? If they do still disappear, what recovery benefits do they offer, if any?
I know these questions are kinda vague, but hopefully you'll be able to offer a newbie from basic info - enough to point me in the right direction for further, deeper research at least.
Many thanks.
Kevin
We rely on AWS for our webservers. I won't use anything else. They're highly scalable, easily configurable and have an absurd uptime. I've never experienced downtime with them. We've been with them for two years.
Reserved instances are cheaper. Get them if you're planning on having that instance for a while. It's simply a cost/budgeting issue.
Never heard of people losing an EC2 instance.
Not terribly knowledgeable about EBS, but S3 is a good way to back up data.
HTH
EDIT:
Came across some links that might be helpful. Cheers.
http://techblog.netflix.com/2010/12/four-reasons-we-choose-amazons-cloud-as.html
http://techblog.netflix.com/2010/12/5-lessons-weve-learned-using-aws.html
http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2011/04/working-with-the-chaos-monkey.html
One of the main design goals of AWS is to make fault tolerant services--that is services that can recover from failures. That is, they design all of their services with the assumption that something will fail in some way at some point, but that there will be redundancies and other mechanism in place to recover from those inevitable failures.
In the case of storage services like S3 and SimpleDB, this is achieved primarily by replicating your data across multiple nodes (machines) in multiple data centers. So when one node experiences a hardware failure or one data center experiences a power outage, there's no real down time as the replicas can still service the requests. As a consumer, you aren't even aware of the down nodes or data centers.
EC2 is designed to work similarly, but it is not quite as encapsulated as S3 and SimpleDB, so you'll need to plan for a bit of the work yourself. For example, if you need a web service with guaranteed uptime and availablity, you'll want to look into AWS ELB (Elastic Load Balancing) service. That way if an instance is down, requests will automatically be routed to other healthy instances. For your data, you can either store it in other AWS services (like S3 and SimpleDB and EBS) which have built-in redundancy or you can build your own solution using similar redundancy techniques.
The SLA amounts to none, when we found out that:
Instances and EBS volumes DID get lost
It takes Amazon more than 2 days to recover from a disaster, and even that not to the full extent
We were the lucky ones, that managed to get back on our feet in less than 2 days. Other companies got stuck with no recovery option.
And what does Amazon recommend? "Don't trust our reliability. Pay for 2 or 3 more copies of your system in different regions, and then you will be safe".
More information can be found here:
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/saas/lightning-strike-zaps-ec2-ireland/1382
tldr: AWS is very reliable if you know what you're doing, a bad idea if you don't.
As your unfamiliar with terms here's a very quick glossary:
AZ - Availability zone, there's several availability zones per region (e.g. 3 in Ireland). They are physical isolated datacentres with different power grids, flood plains etc. But with internal network quality speed connections. It's possible even likely an AZ may become unavailable at some point, I don't think all AZ's in a region have ever been down though.
EBS/Instance Store - These are the two main types of storage available to instance. The best way to describe them is Instance Store is the equivalent to a HDD you have plugged in via sata to your motherboard - its very fast. But what happens if you shutdown your instance (or if the motherboard fails) and want to instantly start on another board? (Amazon completely hides the physical hardware setup) obviously you aren't going to wait for an engineer to unplug a drive from one server and into another so they don't even offer this. Instance store is fast but temporary and tied to the physical machine DO NOT store anything important on it. EBS then is the alternative it is a very low latency network drive that any server can connect to as though it were local. You shut down a server, change the size and restart on a completely different server on the other side of the datacentre (again the physical stuff is hidden), doesn't matter your ebs hasn't gone anywhere (by default theyre also on multiple physical discs).
Commodity cloud hardware - My interpretation of all the 'cloud hardware fails all the time - its really risky and unreliable' is that yes aws hardware is not as reliable as enterprise level components in a managed datacentre. This doesn't mean its unreliable, it just means you should build failure as an option into your design.
First very important thing to note when talking about SLA's is that amazon state very clearly that the SLA ONLY applies if one or more AZ goes down. So if you do not understand how their service works and only build one server in one AZ and a generator or router fails it's your own fault.
As for recovery, that depends - is your entire application state stored on one server - if it is, don't bother with the cloud. If however you can cluster your state on multiple servers, store it in RDS or some other persistent DB. OR if your content changes so infrequently you can utilise periodic copies to s3 storage, you'll be fine. You failure strategy (in order of preference) could be clustered, failover, or auto repair. For the first one you have clustered servers sharing state - it doesn't matter if you lose a server or an AZ. For the second you only have one live server, but if it goes down you have a failover standing by with the same content. Finally with auto repair there's two possible situations - if your data is only on one EBS drive, you could start another instance with the same drive and carry on. But if the EBS drive or AZ fails, you will need to be ready with some snapshot in s3 that a completely fresh instance can copy and start up with.
Reserved instances are no more reliable - they're the same hardware, you're just entering into a contract to say i'll have x machines for y years. Which allows aws to plan better, which is cheaper for you.
I am building out a solution that will be deployed in multiple data centers in multiple regions around the world, with each data center having a replicated copy of data actively updated in each region. I will have a combination of multiple databases and file systems in each data center, the state of which must be kept consistent (within a data center). These multiple repositories will be fronted by a SOA service tier.
I can tolerate some latency in the replication, and need to allow for regions to be off-line, and then catch up later.
Given the multiple back end repositories of data, I can't easily rely on independent replication solutions for each one to maintain a consistent state. I am thus lead to implementing replication at the application layer -- by replicating the SOA requests in some manner. I'll need to make sure that replication loops don't occur, and that last writer conditions are sorted out correctly.
In your experience, what is the best pattern for solving this problem, and are there good products (free or otherwise) that should be investigated?
Lotus/ Domino is your answer. I've been working with it for ten years and its exactly what you need. It may not be trendy (a perception that I would challenge) but its powerful, adaptable and very secure, The latest version R8 is the best yet.
You should definitely consider IBM Lotus Domino. A Lotus Notes database can replicate between sites on a predefined schedule. The replicate in Notes/Domino is definitely a very powerful feature and enables for full replication of data between sites. Even if a server is unavailable the next time it connects it will simply replicate and get back in sync.
As far as SOA Service tier you could then use Domino Designer to write a webservice. Since Notes/Domino 7.5.x (I believe) Domino has been able to provision and consume webservices.
AS what other advised, I will recommend also Lotus Notes/Domino. 8.5 is really very powerful application development platfrom
You dont give enough specifics to be certain of your needs but I think you should check out SQL Server Merge replication. It allows for asynchronous replication of multiple databases with full conflict resolution. You will need to designate a Global master and all the other databases will replicate to that one, but all the database instances are fully functional (read/write) and so you can schedule replication at whatever intervals suit you. If any region goes offline they can catch up later with no issues - if the master goes offline everyone will work independantly until replication can resume.
I would be interested to know of other solutions this flexible (apart from Lotus Notes/Domino of course which is not very trendy these days).
I think that your answer is going to have to be based on a pub/sub architecture. I am assuming that you have reliable messaging between your data centers so that you can rely on published updates being received eventually. If all of your access to the data repositories is via service you can add an event notification to the orchestration of each of your update services that notifies all interested data centers of the event. Ideally the master database is the only one that sends out these updates. If the master database is the only one sending the updates you can exclude routing the notifications to the node that generated them in the first place thus avoiding update loops.