I have a queer situation. I am managing an e-commerce site built on Django with Postgresql. It has two versions - English and Japanese. Because of a release that has brought a huge number of users, the site (specifically Postgres) is overloaded and crashing. The only safe solution which I can think of is to put these two separately on two separate servers so that En and Jp traffic gets their own dedicated server. Now, the new server is ready but during the time of domain propagation, and during half-propagated stages (new one being seen from some countries and old one from some) there will be transactions on both. Users are buying digital stuff in hundreds of numbers every minute. So, there is no way to turn the server off for a turnover.
Is there a way to sync the two databases at a later stage (because if both share a database, the new server will be pointless). The bottleneck is Postgres, and has already been tuned for maximum possible connections on this server, and kernel.shmmax is at its limit. DB pooling also will need time to setup and some downtime as well, which am not permitted to do at the moment. What I mean by sync is that once full propagation occurs, I wish to unify the DB dump files from both and make one which has all records of both synced in time. The structure is rather complex so many tables will need sync. Is this do-able ..?
Thanks in advance !
Related
I am having an application where different users may connect to different databases (those can be either MySQL or Postgres), what might be the best way to cache those connections across different databases? I saw some connection pools but seems like they are more for one db multiple connections than for multiple db multiple connections.
PS:
For adding more context, I am designing a multi tenant architecture where each tenant connects to one or multiple databases, I have an option for using map[string]*sql.DB where the key is the url of the database, but it can be hardly scaled when we have numerous number of databases. Or should we have a sharding layer for each incoming request sharded by connection url, so each machine will contain just the right amount of database connections in the form of map[string]*sql.DB?
An example for the software that I want to build is https://www.sigmacomputing.com/ where the user can connects to multiple databases for working with different tables.
Both MySQL and Postgres do not allow to connection sharing between multiple database users, single database user is specified in connection credentials. If you mean that your different users have their own database credentials, then it is not possible to share connections between them.
If by "different users" you mean your application users and if they share single database user to access DB deeper in the app, then you don't need to do anything particular to "cache" connections. sql.DB keeps and reuses open connections in its pool by default.
Go automatically opens, closes and reuses DB connections with a *database/sql.DB. By default it keeps up to 2 connections open (idle) and opens unlimited number of new connections under concurrency when all opened connections are already busy.
If you need some fine tuning on pool efficiency vs database load, you may want to alter sql.DB config with .Set* methods, for example SetMaxOpenConns.
You seem to have to many unknowns. In cases like this I would apply good, old agile and start with prototype of what you want to achieve with tools that you already know and then benchmark the performance. I think you might be surprised how much go can handle.
Since you understand how to use map[string]*sql.DB for that purpose I would go with that. You reach some limits? Add another machine behind haproxy. Solving scaling problem doesn't necessary mean writing new db pool in go. Obviously if you need this kind of power you can always do it - pgx postgres driver has it's own pool implementation so you can get your inspiration there. However doing this right now seems to be pre-mature optimization - solving problem you don't have yet. Building prototype with map[string]*sql.DB is easy, test it, benchmark it, you will see if you need more.
p.s. BTW you will most likely hit first file descriptor limit before you will be able to exhaust memory.
Assuming you have multiple users with multiple databases with an N to N relation, you could have a map of a database URL to database details (explained below).
The fact that which users have access to which databases should be handled anyway using configmap or a core database; For Database Details, we could have a struct like this:
type DBDetail {
sync.RWMutex
connection *sql.DB
}
The map would be database URL to database's details (dbDetail) and if a user is write it calls this:
dbDetail.Lock()
defer dbDetail.Unock()
and for reads instead of above just use RLock.
As said by vearutop the connections could be a pain but using this you could have a single connection or set the limit with increment and decrement of another variable after Lock.
There isn’t necessarily a correct architectural answer here. It depends on some of the constraints of the system.
I have an option for using map[string]*sql.DB where the key is the url of the database, but it can be hardly scaled when we have numerous number of databases.
Whether this will scale sufficiently depends on the expectation of how numerous the databases will be. If there are expected to be tens or hundreds of concurrent users in the near future, is probably sufficient. Often a good next step after using a map is to transition over to a more full featured cache (for example https://github.com/dgraph-io/ristretto).
A factor in the decision of whether to use a map or cache is how you imagine the lifecycle of a database connection. Once a connection is opened, can that connection remain opened for the remainder of the lifetime of the process or do connections need to be closed after minutes of no use to free up resources.
Should we have a sharding layer for each incoming request sharded by connection url, so each machine will contain just the right amount of database connections in the form of map[string]*sql.DB?
The right answer here depends on how many processing nodes are expected and whether there will be gain additional benefits from routing requests to specific machines. For example, row-level caching and isolating users from each other’s requests is an advantage that would be gained by sharing users across the pool. But a disadvantage is that you might end up with “hot” nodes because a single user might generate a majority of the traffic.
Usually, a good strategy for situations like this is to be really explicit about the constraints of the problem. A rule of thumb was coined by Jeff Dean for situations like this:
Ensure your design works if scale changes by 10X or 20X but the right solution for X [is] often not optimal for 100X
https://static.googleusercontent.com/media/research.google.com/en//people/jeff/stanford-295-talk.pdf
So, if in the near future, the system needs to support tens of concurrent users. The simplest that will support tens to hundreds of concurrent users (probably a map or cache with no user sharding is sufficient). That design will have to change before the system can support thousands of concurrent users. Scaling a system is often a good problem to have because it usually indicates a successful project.
I am working on Asp.Net MVC web application, back-end is SQL Server 2012.
This application will provide billing, accounting, and inventory management. The user will create an account by signup. just like http://www.quickbooks.in. Each user will create some masters and various transactions. There is no limit, user can make unlimited records in the database.
I want to keep stable database performance, after heavy data load. I am maintaining proper indexing and primary keys in it, but there would be a heavy load on the database, per user.
So, should I create a separate database for each user, or should maintain one database with UserID. Add UserID in each table and making a partition based on UserID?
I am not an expert in SQL Server, so please provide suggestions with clear specifications.
Please inform me if there is any lack of information.
A DB per user is what happens when customers need to be able pack up and leave taking the actual database with them. Think of a self hosted wordpress website. Or if there are incredible risks to one user accidentally seeing another user's data, so it's safer to rely on the servers security model than to rely on remembering to add the UserId filter to all your queries. I can't imagine a scenario like that, but who knows-- maybe if the privacy laws allowed for jail time, I would rather data partitioned by security rules rather than carefully writing WHERE clauses.
If you did do user-per-database, creating a new user will be 10x more effort. While INSERT, UPDATE and so on stay the same from version to version, with each upgrade the syntax for database, user creation, permission granting and so on will evolve enough to break those scripts each SQL version upgrade.
Also, this will multiply your migration headaches by the number of users. Let's say you have 5000 users and you need to add some new columns, change a columns data type, update a trigger, and so on. Instead of needing to run that change script 1x, you need to run it 5000 times.
Per user Dbs also probably wastes disk space. Each of those databases is going to have a transaction log, sitting idle taking up the minimum log space.
As for load, if collectively your 5000 users are doing 1 billion inserts, updates and so on per day, my intuition tells me that it's going to be faster on one database, unless there is some sort of contension issue (everyone reading and writing to the same table at the same time and the same pages of the same table). Each database has machine resources (probably threads and memory) per database doing housekeeping, so these extra DBs can't be free.
Anyhow, the best thing to do is to simulate the two architectures and use a random data generator to simulate load and see how they perform.
It's not an easy answer to give.
First, there is logical design to be considered. Then you have integrity, security, management and performance (in this very order).
A database is a logical unit of data, self contained. Ideally, you should be able to take a database, move it to another instance, probably change the connection strings and be running again.
All the constraints are database-level. No foreign keys can exist referencing some object outside the database.
So, try thinking in these terms first.
How would you reliably prevent one user messing up the other user's data? Keep in mind that it's just a matter of time before someone opens an excel sheet and fire up queries on the database bypassing your application. Row level security in SQL Server is something you don't want to deal with.
Multiple databases mean that all management tasks should be scripted out and executed on all databases. Yes, there is some overhead to it, but once you set it up it's just the matter of monitoring. If a database goes suspect, it's a single customer down, not all of them. You can even have different versions for different customes if each customer have it's own database. Additionally, if you roll an upgrade, you can do it per customer, so the inpact will be much less.
Performance is the least relevant factor here. Of course, it really depends on how many customers and how much data, but proper indexing will solve these issues. Scale-out is much easier with multiple databases.
BTW, partitioning, as you mentioned it, is never a performance booster, it's simply a management feature, allowing for faster loading and evicting of data from a table.
I'd probably put each customer in separate database, but it's up to you eventually to make a decision for yourself. Hope I've helped some with this.
I have a desktop app that clients are using at the moment and each client has access to their own local network database.
My manager has decided that its best to merge these databases and only have one. All clients would then access that one database through a webservice that sits on the cloud. I would like to weight the pros and cons before we go ahead with this decision.
The one option we have is to have a ClientID in each of the tables which will result in each table having a composite key .
I have heard that another option would be to use schemas .Please advise how the schema way would work and is this the best way in comparison to having a composite key in each table.
Thank you.
This is a seriously difficult and time consuming task. You will need to have extensive regression tests already built because the risk of things breaking is huge.
Let me tell you a story of a client that had a separate database on a separate suerver that got merged with another database that contained many clients. It took several months to make all the changes to convert the data. Everything looked good and it was pushed to prod. Unfortunately the developer missed one place where client id needed to be referenced (It usually wasn't in the old code since they were the only client on the server). The first day in production a process that sent out emails, sent client proprietary data not only to the client sales reps but to the sales reps of many of their competitors. Of all the places that the change could have been missed, this was the worst possible one. It not only harmed our relationship with the first client but with all the clients that got some other client's info by mistake.
There is also the problem of migrating the data, the project for that alone (without the code changes the application will need) will take months and then you have consider that the clients will be adding data as you go and the final push may run into unexpected hiccups due to new data. You may also have to turn off the odl system for at least a weekend to do the production change.
Using schemas won't make it any easier as you will then have to adjust the code to hit the correct schema per client. And when you change somethign you wil have to change it for each individual schema, so it tends to make the database much more difficult to maintain.
While I am a great fan of having multiple clients in one database, when you didn't start out that way, it is extremely risky and expensive to change. I would not do it al all unless I had these things:
Code in source control
Extensive Unit and regression tests
Separate dev, QA and prod environments
A process for client UAT testing
Extensive knowledge of how cloud computing and webservices works (everyone I know who has moved stuff to the cloud has had some real gotchas)
A QA department
Six months to one year time frame for the project
At least one senior data analyst on the team.
We have data stored in a data warehouse as follows:
Price
Date
Product Name (varchar(25))
We currently only have four products. That changes very infrequently (on average once every 10 years). Once every business day, four new data points are added representing the day's price for each product.
On the website, a user can request this information by entering a date range and selecting one or more products names. Analytics shows that the feature is not heavily used (about 10 users requests per week).
It was suggested that the data warehouse should daily push (SFTP) a CSV file containing all data (currently 6718 rows of this data and growing by four each day) to the web server. Then, the web server would read data from the file and display that data whenever a user made a request.
Usually, the push would only be once a day, but more than one push could be possible to communicate (infrequent) price corrections. Even in the price correction scenario, all data would be delivered in the file. What are problems with this approach?
Would it be better to have the web server make a request to the data warehouse per user request? Or does this have issues such as a greater chance for network errors or performance issues?
Would it be better to have the web server make a request to the data warehouse per user request?
Yes it would. You have very little data, so there is no need to try and 'cache' this in some way. (Apart from the fact that CSV might not be the best way to do this).
There is nothing stopping you from doing these requests from the webserver to the database server. With as little information as this you will not find performance an issue, but even if it would be when everything grows, there is a lot to be gained on the database-side (indexes etc) that will help you survive the next 100 years in this fashion.
The amount of requests from your users (also extremely small) does not need any special treatment, so again, direct query would be the best.
Or does this have issues such as a greater chance for network errors or performance issues?
Well, it might, but that would not justify your CSV method. Examples and why you need not worry, could be
the connection with the databaseserver is down.
This is an issue for both methods, but with only one connection per day the change of a 1-in-10000 failures might seem to be better for once-a-day methods. But these issues should not come up very often, and if they do, you should be able to handle them. (retry request, give a message to user). This is what enourmous amounts of websites do, so trust me if I say that this will not be an issue. Also, think of what it would mean if your daily update failed? That would present a bigger problem!
Performance issues
as said, this is due to the amount of data and requests, not a problem. And even if it becomes one, this is a problem you should be able to catch at a different level. Use a caching system (non CSV) on the database server. Use a caching system on the webserver. Fix your indexes to stop performance from being a problem.
BUT:
It is far from strange to want your data-warehouse separated from your web system. If this is a requirement, and it surely could be, the best thing you can do is re-create your warehouse-database (the one I just defended as being good enough to query directly) on another machine. You might get good results by doing a master-slave system
your datawarehouse is a master-database: it sends all changes to the slave but is inexcessible otherwise
your 2nd database (on your webserver even) gets all updates from the master, and is read-only. you can only query it for data
your webserver cannot connect to the datawarehouse, but can connect to your slave to read information. Even if there was an injection hack, it doesn't matter, as it is read-only.
Now you don't have a single moment where you update the queried database (the master-slave replication will keep it updated always), but no chance that the queries from the webserver put your warehouse in danger. profit!
I don't really see how SQL injection could be a real concern. I assume you have some calendar type field that the user fills in to get data out. If this is the only form just ensure that the only field that is in it is a date then something like DROP TABLE isn't possible. As for getting access to the database, that is another issue. However, a separate file with just the connection function should do fine in most cases so that a user can't, say open your webpage in an HTML viewer and see your database connection string.
As for the CSV, I would have to say querying a database per user, especially if it's only used ~10 times weekly would be much more efficient than the CSV. I just equate the CSV as overkill because again you only have ~10 users attempting to get some information, to export an updated CSV every day would be too much for such little pay off.
EDIT:
Also if an attack is a big concern, which that really depends on the nature of the business, the data being stored, and the visitors you receive, you could always create a backup as another option. I don't really see a reason for this as your question is currently stated, but it is a possibility that even with the best security an attack could happen. That mainly just depends on if the attackers want the information you have.
At my current project I actively use redis for various purposes. There are 2 redis databases for current application:
The first one contains absolutely temporary data: how many users are online, who are online, various admin's counters. This db is cleared before the application starts by start-up script.
The second database is used for persistent data like user's ratings, user's friends, etc.
Everything seems to be correct and everybody is happy.
However, when I've started implementing a new functionality in my application, I discover that I need to intersect a set with user's friends with a set of online users. These sets stored in different redis databases, and I haven't found any possibility to do this task in redis, except changing application architecture and move all keys into one namespace(database).
Is there actually any way to perform some command in redis using data from multiple databases? Or maybe my use case of redis is wrong and I have to perform a fix of system architecture?
There is not. There is a command that makes it easy to move keys to another DB:
http://redis.io/commands/move
If you move all keys to one DB, make sure you don't have any key clashes! You could suffix or prefix the keys from the temp DB to make absolutely sure. MOVE will do nothing if the key already exists in the target DB. So make sure you act on a '0' reply
Using multiple DBs is definitely not a good idea:
A Quote from Salvatore Sanfilippo (the creator of redis):
I understand how this can be useful, but unfortunately I consider
Redis multiple database errors my worst decision in Redis design at
all... without any kind of real gain, it makes the internals a lot
more complex. The reality is that databases don't scale well for a
number of reason, like active expire of keys and VM. If the DB
selection can be performed with a string I can see this feature being
used as a scalable O(1) dictionary layer, that instead it is not.
With DB numbers, with a default of a few DBs, we are communication
better what this feature is and how can be used I think. I hope that
at some point we can drop the multiple DBs support at all, but I think
it is probably too late as there is a number of people relying on this
feature for their work.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/redis-db/vS5wX8X4Cjg/8ounBXitG4sJ