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
Related
Ok, so what I have are 2 web servers running inside of a Windows NLB clustered environment. The servers are identical in every respect, and as you'd expect in an NLB clustered environment, everybody is hitting the cluster name and not the individual members. We also have affinity turned off on the members in the cluster.
But, what I'm trying to do is to turn on some caching for a few large files (MP3s). It's easy enough to dial up a Redis node on one particular member and hit it, everything works like you'd expect. I can pull the data from the cache and serve it up as needed.
Now, let's add the overhead of the NLB. With an NLB in play, you may not be hitting the same web server each time. You might make your first hit to member 01, and the second hit to 02. So, I'd need a way to sync between the two servers. That way it doesn't matter which cluster member you hit, you are going to get the same data.
I don't need to worry about one cache being out of date, the only thing I'm storing in there is read only data from an internal web service.
I've only got 2 servers and it looks like redis clusters need 3. So I guess that's out.
Is this the best approach? Or perhaps there is something else better?
Reasons for redis: We only want the cache to use in-memory only. No writes to the database. Thought this would be a good fit, but need to make sure the data is available in both servers.
It's not possible to have redis multi master (writing on both). And I might say it's replication is blazing fast (check the slaveof command of Redis).
But why you need it in the same server? Access it as a service. So every node will access the actual data. If the main server goes down, the slave will promptly turn itself into a master.
One observation: you might notice that Redis makes use of disk in an async way. An append only file that it does checkpoint depending on the size from time to time so.
I am looking for a (SQL/RDB) database setup that works something like this:
I will have 3+ databases in an active/active/active configuration
prior to doing any insert, the database will communicate with atleast a majority of the others, such that they all either insert at the same time or rollback (transaction)
this way I can write and read from any of the databases, and always get the same results (as long as the field wasn't updated very recently)
note: this is for a use case that will be very read-heavy and have few writes (and delay on the writes is an OK situation)
does anything like this exist? I see all sorts of solutions with database HA configurations, but most of them suggest writing to a primary node or having a passive backup
alternatively I could setup a custom application, and have each application talk to exactly 1 database, and achieve a similar result, but I was hoping something similar would already exist
So my questions is: does something like this exist? if not, are there any technical/architectural reasons why not?
P.S. - I will NOT be using a SAN where all databases can store/access the same data
edit: more clarifications as far as what I am looking for:
1. I have no database picked out yet, but I am more familiar with MySQL / SQL Server / Oracle, so I would have a minor inclination towards on of those
2. If a majority of the nodes are down (or a single node can't communicate with the collective), then I expect all writes from that node to fail, and accept that it may provide old/outdated information
failure / recover scenario expectations:
1. A node goes down: it will query and get updates from the other nodes when it comes back up
2. A node loses connection with the collective: it will provide potentially old data to read request, and refuse any writes
3. A node is in disagreement with the data stores in others: majority rule
4. 4. majority rule does not work: go with whomever has the latest data (although this really shouldn't happen)
5. The entries are insert/update/read only, i.e. there will be no deletes (except manually ofc), so I shouldn't need to worry about an update after a delete, however in that case I would choose to delete the record and ignore the update
6. Any other scenarios I missed?
update: I the closest I see to what I am looking for seems to be using a quorum + 2 DBs, however I would prefer if I could have 3 DBs instead, such that I can query any of them at any time (to further distribute the reads, and also to keep another copy of the data)
You need to define "very recently". In most environments with replication for inserts, all the databases will have the same data within a few seconds of an insert (and a few seconds seems pessimistic).
An alternative approach is a "read-from-one/write-to-all" approach. In this case, reads are spread through the system. Writes are then sent to all nodes by the application (or a common layer that the application uses).
Remember, though, that the issue with database replication is not how it works when it works. The issue is how it recovers when it fails and even how failures are identified. You need to decide what happens when nodes go down, how they recover lost transactions, how you decide that nodes are really synchronized. I would suggest that you peruse the documentation of the database that you are actually using and understand the replication mechanisms provided by that platform.
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
I want to keep two instances of Redis ( server A and B ) which are installed on different hardware to keep data synchronized. When data "X" is written to server A, I want it to be synchronized to server B as well.
The reason for that is that from my client application, whenever I need to read data I can randomly pick between the two servers, load-balancing connection from multiple requests. This also allows to have a high-availability architecture so that if one server goes down the data is still on the other's cache.
How I am performing the above is through client code only. Whenever I write, I write to both servers ( A and B).
Is there a way to specify at server configuration level that server A will be in charge of replicating data writes to B ? Something like a trigger on any writes that replicates to server B and vice versa ( writes to server B get replicated to A ) ?
It is all right here Redis replication
You might instead want to implement local caching in the application, it is way faster than fetching from redis(which is in fact pretty fast too), and if you're hosting a half decent place, the uptime is like 99,9%, so availability shouldn't be a problem.
My understanding could be amiss here. As I understand it, Couchbase uses a smart client to automatically select which node to write to or read from in a cluster. What I DON'T understand is, when this data is written/read, is it also immediately written to all other nodes? If so, in the event of a node failure, how does Couchbase know to use a different node from the one that was 'marked as the master' for the current operation/key? Do you lose data in the event that one of your nodes fails?
This sentence from the Couchbase Server Manual gives me the impression that you do lose data (which would make Couchbase unsuitable for high availability requirements):
With fewer larger nodes, in case of a node failure the impact to the
application will be greater
Thank you in advance for your time :)
By default when data is written into couchbase client returns success just after that data is written to one node's memory. After that couchbase save it to disk and does replication.
If you want to ensure that data is persisted to disk in most client libs there is functions that allow you to do that. With help of those functions you can also enshure that data is replicated to another node. This function is called observe.
When one node goes down, it should be failovered. Couchbase server could do that automatically when Auto failover timeout is set in server settings. I.e. if you have 3 nodes cluster and stored data has 2 replicas and one node goes down, you'll not lose data. If the second node fails you'll also not lose all data - it will be available on last node.
If one node that was Master goes down and failover - other alive node becames Master. In your client you point to all servers in cluster, so if it unable to retreive data from one node, it tries to get it from another.
Also if you have 2 nodes in your disposal you can install 2 separate couchbase servers and configure XDCR (cross datacenter replication) and manually check servers availability with HA proxies or something else. In that way you'll get only one ip to connect (proxy's ip) which will automatically get data from alive server.
Hopefully Couchbase is a good system for HA systems.
Let me explain in few sentence how it works, suppose you have a 5 nodes cluster. The applications, using the Client API/SDK, is always aware of the topology of the cluster (and any change in the topology).
When you set/get a document in the cluster the Client API uses the same algorithm than the server, to chose on which node it should be written. So the client select using a CRC32 hash the node, write on this node. Then asynchronously the cluster will copy 1 or more replicas to the other nodes (depending of your configuration).
Couchbase has only 1 active copy of a document at the time. So it is easy to be consistent. So the applications get and set from this active document.
In case of failure, the server has some work to do, once the failure is discovered (automatically or by a monitoring system), a "fail over" occurs. This means that the replicas are promoted as active and it is know possible to work like before. Usually you do a rebalance of the node to balance the cluster properly.
The sentence you are commenting is simply to say that the less number of node you have, the bigger will be the impact in case of failure/rebalance, since you will have to route the same number of request to a smaller number of nodes. Hopefully you do not lose data ;)
You can find some very detailed information about this way of working on Couchbase CTO blog:
http://damienkatz.net/2013/05/dynamo_sure_works_hard.html
Note: I am working as developer evangelist at Couchbase