At present we are using KahaDB store for message persistence in ActiveMQ and so far good.
As per the release notes of ActiveMQ5.6, LevelDB provides enhanced performance.
Has anyone tried usign LevelDB and if so could you provide the pros and cons?
FYI: Here's a link to the official docs for the ActiveMQ LevelDB Store
Cons:
It's a brand new store, so may still have some bugs left in it.
LevelDB indexes need to 'compact' occasionally which MIGHT stall out new writes.
You can't just delete the index and rebuild it from the data files like you can with KahaDB
KahaDB handles disk corruption much more gracefully, recovering what it can and discarding corrupted records.
Pros:
Append mostly disk access patterns improve perf on rotational disk.
Fewer disk syncs than KahaDB
Fewer index entries need to be inserted per message stored
Fewer index lookups needed to load a message from disk into memory
Uses Snappy compression to reduce the on disk size of index entries
Optional Snappy compression of data logs.
A send to a composite destination only stores the message on disk once.
Faster and more frequent data file GCs.
Has a 'Replicated' variation where it can self replicate to 'slave' brokers to ensure message level HA.
We've been using the levelDB store a month of two now in production on NFS (with standard file lock failover configured). We've had a corrupt store several times now in the last few weeks, with no errors in the logs... just queues piling up, and very low throughput. The only thing we could do to resolve this, is throw away the store, and start over.
So we've switched back to the old and reliable KahaDB store again for now.
Please see this link: https://github.com/fusesource/fuse-extra/tree/master/fusemq-leveldb#how-to-use-with-activemq-56
There's a small comparison for leveldb vs kahadb.
I am currently trying it out on a system with high message throughput , and I see better results already. I still need to see if it is stable, but so far good.
Most of the performance claims made for LevelDB appear to be empty claims. It is supposed to support high concurrency reads but multi-threaded testing shows no concurrency gains. https://github.com/ayende/raven.voron/pull/9#issuecomment-29764803
(In contrast, LMDB shows perfect linear performance gains for reads across multiple CPUs. https://github.com/ayende/raven.voron/pull/9#issuecomment-29780359 )
I did extensive testing of AMQ performance and was not able to gain any statistically significant difference between LevelDB vs. KahaDB in my tests: http://whywebsphere.com/2015/03/12/ibm-mq-vs-apache-activemq-performance-comparison-update/
Related
Redis team introduce new Streams data type for Redis 5.0. Since Streams looks like Kafka topics from first view it seems difficult to find real world examples for using it.
In streams intro we have comparison with Kafka streams:
Runtime consumer groups handling. For example, if one of three consumers fails permanently, Redis will continue to serve first and second because now we would have just two logical partitions (consumers).
Redis streams much faster. They stored and operated from memory so this one is as is case.
We have some project with Kafka, RabbitMq and NATS. Now we are deep look into Redis stream to trying using it as "pre kafka cache" and in some case as Kafka/NATS alternative. The most critical point right now is replication:
Store all data in memory with AOF replication.
By default the asynchronous replication will not guarantee that XADD commands or consumer groups state changes are replicated: after a failover something can be missing depending on the ability of followers to receive the data from the master. This one looks like point to kill any interest to try streams in high load.
Redis failover process as operated by Sentinel or Redis Cluster performs only a best effort check to failover to the follower which is the most updated, and under certain specific failures may promote a follower that lacks some data.
And the cap strategy. The real "capped resource" with Redis Streams is memory, so it's not really so important how many items you want to store or which capped strategy you are using. So each time you consumer fails you would get peak memory consumption or message lost with cap.
We use Kafka as RTB bidder frontend which handle ~1,100,000 messages per second with ~120 bytes payload. With Redis we have ~170 mb/sec memory consumption on write and with 512 gb RAM server we have write "reserve" for ~50 minutes of data. So if processing system would be offline for this time we would crash.
Could you please tell more about Redis Streams usage in real world and may be some cases you try to use it themself? Or may be Redis Streams could be used with not big amount of data?
long time no see. This feels like a discussion that belongs in the redis-db mailing list, but the use case sounds fascinating.
Note that Redis Streams are not intended to be a Kafka replacement - they provide different properties and capabilities despite the similarities. You are of course correct with regards to the asynchronous nature of replication. As for scaling the amount of RAM available, you should consider using a cluster and partition your streams across period-based key names.
We recently migrated to Couchbase 3.1.0. The odd thing is - when performing full backup of a bucket, web UI alerts "Hard Out Of Memory Error. Bucket X on node Y is full. All memory allocated to this bucket is used for metadata". The numbers from RAM usage in the web UI contradict that - about 75% is used, but not 100%. I looked into the logs, but haven't find any similar errors there.
Is that even normal?
This is a known issue in the Couchbase Server 3.x releases.
To understand the problem, we must also first understand Database Change Protocol (DCP), the protocol used to transfer data throughout the system. At a high level the flow-control for DCP is as follows:
The Consumer creates a connection with the Producer and sends an Open Connection message. The Consumer then sends a Control message to indicate per stream flow control. This messages will contain “stream_buffer_size” in the key section and the buffer size the Consumer would like each stream to have in the value section.
The Consumer will then start opening streams so that is can receive data from the server.
The Producer will then continue to send data for the stream that has buffer space available until it reaches the maximum send size.
Steps 1-3 continue until the connection is closed, as the Consumer continues to consume items from the stream.
The cbbackup utility does not implement any flow control (data buffer limits) however, and it will try to stream all vbuckets from all nodes at once, with no cap on the buffer size.
While this does not mean that it will use the same amount of memory as your overall data size (as the streams are being drained slowly by the cbbackup process), it does mean that a large memory overhead is required to be able to store the data streams.
When you are in a heavy DGM (disk greater than memory) scenario, the amount of memory required to store the streams is likely to grow more rapidly than cbbackup can drain them as it is streaming large quantities of data off of disk, leading to very large streams, which take up a lot of memory as previously mentioned.
The slightly misleading message about metadata taking up all of the memory is displayed as there is no memory left for the data, so all of the remaining memory is allocated to the metadata, which when using value eviction cannot be ejected from memory.
The reason that this only affects Couchbase Server versions prior to 4.0 is that in 4.0 a server-side improvement to DCP stream management was made that allows the pausing of DCP streams to keep the memory footprint down, this is tracked as MB-12179.
As a result, you should not experience the same issue on Couchbase Server versions 4.x+, regardless of how DGM your bucket is.
Workaround
If you find yourself in a situation where this issue is occurring, then terminating the backup job should release all of the memory consumed by the streams immediately.
Unfortunately if you have already had most of your data evicted from memory as a result of the backup, then you will have to retrieve a large quantity of data off of disk instead of RAM for a small period of time, which is likely to increase your get latencies.
Over time 'hot' data will be brought into memory when requested, so this will only be a problem for a small period of time, however this is still a fairly undesirable situation to be in.
The workaround to avoid this issue completely is to only stream a small number of vbuckets at once when performing the backup, as opposed to all vbuckets which cbbackup does by default.
This can be achieved using cbbackupwrapper which comes bundled with all Couchbase Server releases 3.1.0 and later, details of using cbbackupwrapper can be found in the Couchbase Server documentation.
In particular the parameter to pay attention to is the -n flag, which specifies the number of vbuckets to be backed up in a batch at once.
As the name suggests, cbbackupwrapper is simply a wrapper script on top of cbbackup which partitions the vbuckets up and automatically handles all of the directory creation and backup generation, while still using cbbackup under the hood.
As an example, with a batch size of 50, cbbackupwrapper would backup vbuckets 0-49 first, followed by 50-99, then 100-149 etc.
It is suggested that you test with cbbackupwrapper in a testing environment which mirrors your production environment to find a suitable value for -n and -P (which controls how many backup processes run at once, the combination of these two controls the amount of memory pressure caused by backup as well as the overall speed).
You should not find that lowering the value of -n from its default 100 decreases the backup speed, in some cases you may find that the backup speed actually increases due to the fact that there is far less memory pressure on the server.
You may however wish to sensibly adjust the -P parameter if you wish to speed up the backup further.
Below is an example command:
cbbackupwrapper http://[host]:8091 [backup_dir] -u [user_name] -p [password] -n 50
It should be noted that if you use cbbackupwrapper to perform your backup then you must also use cbrestorewrapper to restore the data, as cbrestorewrapper is automatically aware of the directory structures used by cbbackupwrapper.
When you run a full backup, by default the backup tool streams data from all nodes over the network. This is not the best way, because it causes a lot of extra load and increased memory usage, especially of you run cbbackup on one of the Couchbase nodes. I would use the data-copy mode of cbbackup, which copies data directly from the files on disk:
> sudo /opt/couchbase/bin/cbbackup couchstore-files:///opt/couchbase/var/lib/couchbase/data/ /tmp/backup
Of course, change the data path to wherever your Couchbase data is actually stored. (In my example it runs as sudo because only root has read access to /opt/couchbase/blabla..) Do this on every node, then collect all the backup folders and put them somewhere. Note that the backups are very compressible, so you might want to zip them before copying over the network.
I understand that Redis serves all data from memory, but does it persist as well across server reboot so that when the server reboots it reads into memory all the data from disk. Or is it always a blank store which is only to store data while apps are running with no persistence?
I suggest you read about this on http://redis.io/topics/persistence . Basically you lose the guaranteed persistence when you increase performance by using only in-memory storing. Imagine a scenario where you INSERT into memory, but before it gets persisted to disk lose power. There will be data loss.
Redis supports so-called "snapshots". This means that it will do a complete copy of whats in memory at some points in time (e.g. every full hour). When you lose power between two snapshots, you will lose the data from the time between the last snapshot and the crash (doesn't have to be a power outage..). Redis trades data safety versus performance, like most NoSQL-DBs do.
Most NoSQL-databases follow a concept of replication among multiple nodes to minimize this risk. Redis is considered more a speedy cache instead of a database that guarantees data consistency. Therefore its use cases typically differ from those of real databases:
You can, for example, store sessions, performance counters or whatever in it with unmatched performance and no real loss in case of a crash. But processing orders/purchase histories and so on is considered a job for traditional databases.
Redis server saves all its data to HDD from time to time, thus providing some level of persistence.
It saves data in one of the following cases:
automatically from time to time
when you manually call BGSAVE command
when redis is shutting down
But data in redis is not really persistent, because:
crash of redis process means losing all changes since last save
BGSAVE operation can only be performed if you have enough free RAM (the amount of extra RAM is equal to the size of redis DB)
N.B.: BGSAVE RAM requirement is a real problem, because redis continues to work up until there is no more RAM to run in, but it stops saving data to HDD much earlier (at approx. 50% of RAM).
For more information see Redis Persistence.
It is a matter of configuration. You can have none, partial or full persistence of your data on Redis. The best decision will be driven by the project's technical and business needs.
According to the Redis documentation about persistence you can set up your instance to save data into disk from time to time or on each query, in a nutshell. They provide two strategies/methods AOF and RDB (read the documentation to see details about then), you can use each one alone or together.
If you want a "SQL like persistence", they have said:
The general indication is that you should use both persistence methods if you want a degree of data safety comparable to what PostgreSQL can provide you.
The answer is generally yes, however a fuller answer really depends on what type of data you're trying to store. In general, the more complete short answer is:
Redis isn't the best fit for persistent storage as it's mainly performance focused
Redis is really more suitable for reliable in-memory storage/cacheing of current state data, particularly for allowing scalability by providing a central source for data used across multiple clients/servers
Having said this, by default Redis will persist data snapshots at a periodic interval (apparently this is every 1 minute, but I haven't verified this - this is described by the article below, which is a good basic intro):
http://qnimate.com/redis-permanent-storage/
TL;DR
From the official docs:
RDB persistence [the default] performs point-in-time snapshots of your dataset at specified intervals.
AOF persistence [needs to be explicitly configured] logs every write operation received by the server, that will be played again at server startup, reconstructing the
original dataset.
Redis must be explicitly configured for AOF persistence, if this is required, and this will result in a performance penalty as well as growing logs. It may suffice for relatively reliable persistence of a limited amount of data flow.
You can choose no persistence at all.Better performance but all the data lose when Redis shutting down.
Redis has two persistence mechanisms: RDB and AOF.RDB uses a scheduler global snapshooting and AOF writes update to an apappend-only log file similar to MySql.
You can use one of them or both.When Redis reboots,it constructes data from reading the RDB file or AOF file.
All the answers in this thread are talking about the possibility of redis to persist the data: https://redis.io/topics/persistence (Using AOF + after every write (change)).
It's a great link to get you started, but it is defenently not showing you the full picture.
Can/Should You Really Persist Unrecoverable Data/State On Redis?
Redis docs does not talk about:
Which redis providers support this (AOF + after every write) option:
Almost none of them - redis labs on the cloud does NOT provide this option. You may need to buy the on-premise version of redis-labs to support it. As not all companies are willing to go on-premise, then they will have a problem.
Other Redis Providers does not specify if they support this option at all. AWS Cache, Aiven,...
AOF + after every write - This option is slow. you will have to test it your self on your production hardware to see if it fits your requirements.
Redis enterpice provide this option and from this link: https://redislabs.com/blog/your-cloud-cant-do-that-0-5m-ops-acid-1msec-latency/ let's see some banchmarks:
1x x1.16xlarge instance on AWS - They could not achieve less than 2ms latency:
where latency was measured from the time the first byte of the request arrived at the cluster until the first byte of the ‘write’ response was sent back to the client
They had additional banchmarking on a much better harddisk (Dell-EMC VMAX) which results < 1ms operation latency (!!) and from 70K ops/sec (write intensive test) to 660K ops/sec (read intensive test). Pretty impresive!!!
But it defenetly required a (very) skilled devops to help you create this infrastructure and maintain it over time.
One could (falsy) argue that if you have a cluster of redis nodes (with replicas), now you have full persistency. this is false claim:
All DBs (sql,non-sql,redis,...) have the same problem - For example, running set x 1 on node1, how much time it takes for this (or any) change to be made in all the other nodes. So additional reads will receive the same output. well, it depends on alot of fuctors and configurations.
It is a nightmare to deal with inconsistency of a value of a key in multiple nodes (any DB type). You can read more about it from Redis Author (antirez): http://antirez.com/news/66. Here is a short example of the actual ngihtmare of storing a state in redis (+ a solution - WAIT command to know how much other redis nodes received the latest change change):
def save_payment(payment_id)
redis.rpush(payment_id,”in progress”) # Return false on exception
if redis.wait(3,1000) >= 3 then
redis.rpush(payment_id,”confirmed”) # Return false on exception
if redis.wait(3,1000) >= 3 then
return true
else
redis.rpush(payment_id,”cancelled”)
return false
end
else
return false
end
The above example is not suffeint and has a real problem of knowing in advance how much nodes there actually are (and alive) at every moment.
Other DBs will have the same problem as well. Maybe they have better APIs but the problem still exists.
As far as I know, alot of applications are not even aware of this problem.
All in all, picking more dbs nodes is not a one click configuration. It involves alot more.
To conclude this research, what to do depends on:
How much devs your team has (so this task won't slow you down)?
Do you have a skilled devops?
What is the distributed-system skills in your team?
Money to buy hardware?
Time to invest in the solution?
And probably more...
Many Not well-informed and relatively new users think that Redis is a cache only and NOT an ideal choice for Reliable Persistence.
The reality is that the lines between DB, Cache (and many more types) are blurred nowadays.
It's all configurable and as users/engineers we have choices to configure it as a cache, as a DB (and even as a hybrid).
Each choice comes with benefits and costs. And this is NOT an exception for Redis but all well-known Distributed systems provide options to configure different aspects (Persistence, Availability, Consistency, etc). So, if you configure Redis in default mode hoping that it will magically give you highly reliable persistence then it's team/engineer fault (and NOT that of Redis).
I have discussed these aspects in more detail on my blog here.
Also, here is a link from Redis itself.
According to this link which belongs to JBoss documentation, I understood that Infinispan is a better product than JBoss Cache and kind of improvement the reason for which they recommend to migrate from JBoss Cache to Infinispan, that is supported by JBoss as well. Am I right in what I understood? Otherwise, are there differences?
One more question : Talking about replication and distribution, can any one of them be better than the other according to the need?
Thank you
Question:
Talking about replication and distribution, can any one of them be better than the other according to the need?
Answer:
I am taking a reference directly from Clustering modes - Infinispan
Distributed:
Number of copies represents the tradeoff between performance and durability of data
The more copies you maintain, the lower performance will be, but also the lower the risk of losing data due to server outages
use of a consistent hash algorithm to determine where in a cluster entries should be stored
No need to replicate data on each node that takes more time than just communicating hash code
Best suitable if no of nodes are high
Best suitable if size of data stored in cache is high.
Replicated:
Entries added to any of these cache instances will be replicated to all other cache instances in the cluster
This clustered mode provides a quick and easy way to share state across a cluster
replication practically only performs well in small clusters (under 10 servers), due to the number of replication messages that need to happen - as the cluster size increases
Practical Experience:
I are using Infinispan cache in my running live application on Jboss server having 8 nodes. Initially I used replicated cache but it took much longer time to respond due to large size of data. Finally we come back to Distributed and now its working fine.
Use replicated or distributed cache only for data specific to any user session. If data is common regardless of any user than prefer Local cache that's created separately for each node.
I have a requirement to keep the RavenDB database running when the disk for main database and index storage is full. I know I can configure provide a drive for storage with config option - Raven/IndexStoragePath
But I need to design for the corner case of when the this disk is full. What is the usual pattern used in this situation. One way is to halt all access while shutting the service down and updating the config file programatically and then start the service - but it is a bit risky.
I am aware of sharding and this question is not related to that , assume that sharding is enables and I have multiple shards and I want to increase storage for each shard by adding a new drive to each. Is there an elegant solution to this?
user544550,
In a disk full scenario, RavenDB will continue to operate, but will refuse to accept further writes.
Indexing will fail as well and eventually mark the indexes as permanently failing.
What is your actual scenario?
Note that in RavenDB, indexes tend to be significantly smaller than the actual data size, so the major cause for disk space utilization is actually the main database, not the indexes.