I would like to keep a min number of connections alive in the pool for performance reasons.
The DB is read only and exposed via a stateless WCF service, so I think setting MinPoolSize from a default of 0 makes sense in this scenario.
At the same time I don't want to set the value too high unnecessarily wasting memory by keeping a large number of idle connections.
What would be the best practice or recommended setting a custom MinPoolSize in this kind of scenario?
The minimum number of connections in a connection pool cannot be less than two
Related
I'm trying to deploy a scalable web application on google cloud.
I have kubernetes deployment which creates multiple replicas of apache+php pods. These have cpu/memory resources/limits set.
Lets say that memory limit per replica is 2GB. How do I properly configure apache to respect this limit?
I can modify maximum process count and/or maximum memory per process to prevent memory overflow (thus the replicas will not be killed because of OOM). But this does create new problem, this settings will also limit maximum number of requests that my replica could handle. In case of DDOS attack (or just more traffic) the bottleneck could be the maximum process limit, not memory/cpu limit. I think that this could happen pretty often, as these limits are set to worst case scenario, not based on average traffic.
I want to configure autoscaler so that it will create multiple replicas in case of such event, not only when the cpu/memory usage is near limit.
How do I properly solve this problem? Thanks for help!
I would recommend doing the following instead of trying to configuring apache to limit itself internally:
Enforce resource limits on pods. i.e let them OOM. (but see NOTE*)
Define an autoscaling metric for your deployment based on your load.
Setup a namespace wide resource-quota. This enforeces a clusterwide limit on the resources pods in that namespace can use.
This way you can let your Apache+PHP pods handle as many requests as possible until they OOM, at which point they respawn and join the pool again, which is fine* (because hopefully they're stateless) and at no point does your over all resource utilization exceed the resource limits (quotas) enforced on the namespace.
* NOTE: This is only true if you're not doing fancy stuff like websockets or stream based HTTP, in which case an OOMing Apache instance takes down other clients that are holding an open socket to the instance. If you want, you should always be able to enforce limits on apache in terms of the number of threads/processes it runs anyway, but it's best not to unless you have solid need for it. With this kind of setup, no matter what you do, you'll not be able to evade DDoS attacks of large magnitudes. You're either doing to have broken sockets (in the case of OOM) or request timeouts (not enough threads to handle requests). You'd need far more sophisticated networking/filtering gear to prevent "good" traffic from taking a hit.
I was reading up on problems with server based authentication. I need help with elaboration on the following point.
Scalability: Since sessions are stored in memory, this provides problems with scalability. As our cloud providers start replicating servers to handle application load, having vital information in session memory will limit our ability to scale.
I don't seem to understand why "... having vital information in session memory will limit our ability to scale", will limit the ability to scale. Is it just because the information is being replicated.. so it's to do with redundancy? I don't think so. Anyway, would anyone be kind enough to explain this further? Much appreciated.
What's being referred to is the difference between stateless and stateful server-side ops. Stateful servers keep part of their resources (main memory, mostly) occupied for retaining state pertaining to some client, even when the server is actually doing nothing at all for the client and just waiting for the client to come back. Such systems' performance profile is "linear" only up to the point where all available memory has been filled with state, and beyond that point the server seems to essentially stall. Stateless servers only keep resources occupied when they're actually doing something, and once finished doing stuff, those resources are immediately freed and available for other clients. Such servers are essentially not capped by memory limits and therefore "scale easier".
Also, the explanation given seems to refer to scenario's where a set of distinct machines present themselves to the outside world as being one, when actually they are not (this is often called a "cluster" of machines/servers). In such scenario's, if a client has connected to the "big single virtual machine", then actually he is connected to just one of the "actual machines" in the cluster. If state is kept there, subsequent visits by that same client must then be routed to the same physical machine, or that piece of state must be trafficked around to whatever machine the next visit happens to be to. The former implies the implementation of management functions that take their own set of resources, plus limitations on the freedom the cluster has to distribute the load (the opposite of why you want to do clustering), the latter implies additional network traffic that will cap scalability in essentially the same way as available memory does.
Server-based authentication makes use of sessions, which in turn make use of a local session id. In the cloud, when the servers are replicated to handle application load, it becomes difficult for one server to know which sessions are active on other servers. Now to overcome this problem, extra steps must be performed... for instance to persist the session id on to the database. However, as the servers are increasingly replicated, it becomes more and more difficult to handle all this. Therefore, server-based or session-based authentication can be problematic for scalability.
I have heard in the past that persistent connections are not good to use on a high traffic web server. Is this true, or does it only apply to apache's prefork mode? Would CGI mode have this problem?
This involves PHP, Apache, and Postgresql.
Are PHP persistent connections evil ? -- in context of PHP and MySQL.
The reason behind using persistent connections is of course reducing number of connects which are rather expensive, even though they are much faster with MySQL than with most other databases.
The first problem with persistent connections...
If you’re establishing thousands of connections per second you normally do not keep it open for long time, but Operation System does. According to TCP/IP protocol Ports can’t be recycled instantly and have to spend some time in “FIN” stage waiting before they can be recycled.
The second problem... using too many MySQL server connections.
Some people simply do not realize you can increase max_connections variable and get over 100 concurrent connections with MySQL others were beaten by older Linux problems of not being able to have more than 1024 connections with MySQL.
Lets talk now about why Persistent connections were disabled in mysqli extension. Even though you could misuse persistent connections and get poor performance that was not the reason. The real reason is – you could get much more problems with it.
Persistent connections were added to PHP during times of MySQL 3.22/3.23 when MySQL was simple enough so you could recycle connections easily without any problems. In later versions number of problems however arose – If you recycle connection which has uncommitted transactions you run into trouble. If you happen to recycle connections with custom character set settings you’re in trouble back again, not to mention about possibly changed per session variables.
One problem with using persistent connections is that it doesn't really scale that well. If you have 5000 people connected, you need 5000 persistent connections. If you take away the need for persistence, you might be able to serve 10000 people with the same number of connections because they're able to share those connections when they're not using them.
I'm making a stateless web service which uses Microsoft SQL Server to read data (and only to read), without using transactions. What will be the best of the following:
Starting SqlConnection at each call to the web service, or
Storing SqlConnection in a static field.
IMHO, the first approach will cost too much resources (if ten clients make ten requests to the web service, it opens one hundred times the database...), but the second one has maybe some problems? Maybe race condition? Or security issues?
Adding a max/min pool size allows SQL server to pool connections so even though you create a new SqlConnection object, the db can pool connections for you.
(MSDN, min pool size)
eg. ConnectionString="Catalog=MyDb; MinPoolSize=10; MaxPoolSize=10..."
Personally, by default I would open the connection with each call, and rely on connection pooling to sort it out for me.
I wouldn't worry about the connection cost unless you are finding that to be problematic for some reason. Connection Pooling will make most of this less of a concern.
If you are working heavily with the database, or retrieving a large amount of static data you might want to consider implementing some kind of caching to reduce the overall cost of contacting the database period. The more data you can keep in the application cache the better, even with stateless web services.
I'm using PHP's PDO layer for data access in a project, and I've been reading up on it and seeing that it has good innate support for persistent DB connections. I'm wondering when/if I should use them. Would I see performance benefits in a CRUD-heavy app? Are there downsides to consider, perhaps related to security?
If it matters to you, I'm using MySQL 5.x.
You could use this as a rough "ruleset":
YES, use persistent connections, if:
There are only few applications/users accessing the database, i.e. you will not result in 200 open (but probably idle) connections, because there are 200 different users shared on the same host.
The database is running on another server that you are accessing over the network
An (one) application accesses the database very often
NO, don't use persistent connections, if:
Your application only needs to access the database 100 times an hour.
You have many webservers accessing one database server
You're using Apache in prefork mode. It uses one connection for each child process, which can ramp up fairly quickly. (via #Powerlord in the comments)
Using persistent connections is considerable faster, especially if you are accessing the database over a network. It doesn't make so much difference if the database is running on the same machine, but it is still a little bit faster. However - as the name says - the connection is persistent, i.e. it stays open, even if it is not used.
The problem with that is, that in "default configuration", MySQL only allows 1000 parallel "open channels". After that, new connections are refused (You can tweak this setting). So if you have - say - 20 Webservers with each 100 Clients on them, and every one of them has just one page access per hour, simple math will show you that you'll need 2000 parallel connections to the database. That won't work.
Ergo: Only use it for applications with lots of requests.
In brief, my experience says that persistent connections should be avoided as far as possible.
Note that mysql_close is a no-operation (no-op) for connections that are created using mysql_pconnect. This means persistent connection cannot be closed by client at will. Such connection will be closed by mysqldb server when no activity occurs on the connection for duration more than wait_timeout. If wait_timeout is large value (say 30 min) then mysql db server can easily reach max_connections limit. In such case, mysql db will not accept any future connection request. This is when your pager starts beeping.
In order to avoid reaching max_connections limit, use of Persistent connection need careful balancing of following variables...
Number of apache processes on one host
Total number of hosts running apache
wait_timout variable in mysql db server
max_connections variable in mysql db server
Number of requests served by one apache process before it is re-spawned
So, pl use persistent connection after enough deliberation. You may not want to invite complex runtime issues for a small gain that you get from persistent connection.
Creating connections to the database is a fairly expensive operation. Persistent connections are a good idea. In the ASP.Net and Java world, we have "connection pooling", which is roughly the same thing, and also a good idea.
IMO, The real answer to this question is whatever works best for you app. I would recommend you benchmark your app using both persistent and non-persistent connections.
Maggie Nelson # Objectively Oriented posted about this in August and Robert Swarthout made an accompanying post with some hard numbers. Both are pretty good reads.
In my humble opinion:
When using PHP for web development, most of your connection will only "live" for the life of the page executing. A persistant connection is going to cost you a lot of overhead as you'll have to put it in the session or some such thing.
99% of the time a single non-persistant connection that dies at the end of the page execution will work just fine.
The other 1% of the time, you probably should not be using PHP for the app, and there is no perfect solution for you.
In general, you'll need to use non-persistent connections sometimes, and it's nice to have a single pattern to apply to db connection design (as long as there's relatively little upside to using persistent connections in your context.)
I was going to ask this same question but rather than ask the same question again I'll just add some information that I've found.
Are PHP persistent connections evil ?
Persistent Database Connections
It is also worth noting that the newer mysqli extension does not even include the option to use persistent database connections.
I'm still using persitent connections at the moment but plan to switch to non-persistent in the near future.