I'm creating a RESTful backend API for eventual use by a phone app, and am toying with the idea of making some of the API read functions nothing more than static files, created and periodically updated by my server-side code, that the app will simply GET directly.
Is this a good idea?
My hope is to significantly reduce the CPU and memory load on the server by not requiring any code to run at all for many of the API calls. However, there could potentially be a huge number of these files (at least one per user of the phone app, which will be a public app listed in the app stores that I naturally hope will get lots of downloads) and I'm wondering if that alone will lead to latency issues I'm trying to avoid.
Here are more details:
It's an Apache server
The hardware is a hosting provider's VPS with about 1gb memory and 20gb free disk space
The average file size (in terms of content and not disk footprint) will probably be < 1kb
I imagine my server-side code might update a given user's data once a day or so at most.
The app will probably do GETs on these files just a few times a day. (There's no real-time interaction going on.)
I might password protect the directory the files will be in at the .htaccess level, though there's no personal or proprietary information in any of the files, so maybe I don't need to, but if I do, will that make a difference in terms of the main question of feasibility and performance?
Thanks for any help you can give me.
This is generally a good thing to do: anything that can be static rather than dynamic is a win for performance and cost (it's why we do caching!), but the main issue with with authorization (which you'll still need to do for each incoming request).
You might also want to consider using a cloud service for storage of the static data (e.g., Amazon S3 or Google Cloud Storage). There are neat ways to provide temporary authorized URLs that you can pass to users so that they can read the data for a short time and then must re-authorize to continue having access.
Recently a Rails 3 app we built and host had some issues with the Google Analytics tracker installed. This resulted in vastly diminished statistics being tracked during the last month. We have our production logs from the app and I'm wondering if anyone knows of any way to parse these to produce visitor statistics (similar to what web analytics packages would provide). We need to deliver a stats report this week and would like to have some account for the missing visitors. Any suggestions or help would be greatly appreciated!
Probably the better place to look would be your web server logs. 5 or 10 years ago all the popular analytics software gobbled up web server logs, and there are a few free ones our there. Google "web log analytics" and see if there's anything suitable.
The problem is, web logs contain all traffic, and for many websites, this can be from all sorts of sources you don't care about, like GoogleBot and others that crawl your site to add to search indexes ... and many more. Look for software that will try to filter these out, and will also know to ignore assets (JS, CSS, images, etc.). Analytics doesn't have to worry about this kind of stuff since it's based on cookies and javascript running in a real visitor's browser.
No matter how good these programs are, there are two things you'll need to take into account.
Numbers will not align with GA, and you'll go crazy if you try to make them add up -- the differences can be astonishingly large, as much as 20% or more.
It may be more work than it's worth to get the software configured -- even if you do, the level of detail pales in comparison to GA.
If you're handy with grep, the Rails log might help you get some quick-and-dirty counts (although they also record all traffic, unless users need to log in, in which case logs may be a little less noisy).
A different approach might be to look in your database -- is there anything you can track that acts as a proxy for a visit or any other goal you have been tracking? How useful this is depends entirely on your app and what you store in the database.
Some combination of the above may be the best way to get at something, but I hate to be the bearer of bad news -- it's very likely that what you're able to glean from logs creates more confusion than it's worth. Been there, tried that :-(
Tom
I'm considering MongoDB right now. Just so the goal is clear here is what needs to happen:
In my app, Finch (finchformac.com for details) I have thousands and thousands of entries per day for each user of what window they had open, the time they opened it, the time they closed it, and a tag if they choose one for it. I need this data to be backed up online so it can sync to their other Mac computers, etc.. I also need to be able to draw charts online from their data which means some complex queries hitting hundreds of thousands of records.
Right now I have tried using Ruby/Rails/Mongoid in with a JSON parser on the app side sending up data in increments of 10,000 records at a time, the data is processed to other collections with a background mapreduce job. But, this all seems to block and is ultimately too slow. What recommendations does (if anyone) have for how to go about this?
You've got a complex problem, which means you need to break it down into smaller, more easily solvable issues.
Problems (as I see it):
You've got an application which is collecting data. You just need to
store that data somewhere locally until it gets sync'd to the
server.
You've received the data on the server and now you need to shove it
into the database fast enough so that it doesn't slow down.
You've got to report on that data and this sounds hard and complex.
You probably want to write this as some sort of API, for simplicity (and since you've got loads of spare processing cycles on the clients) you'll want these chunks of data processed on the client side into JSON ready to import into the database. Once you've got JSON you don't need Mongoid (you just throw the JSON into the database directly). Also you probably don't need rails since you're just creating a simple API so stick with just Rack or Sinatra (possibly using something like Grape).
Now you need to solve the whole "this all seems to block and is ultimately too slow" issue. We've already removed Mongoid (so no need to convert from JSON -> Ruby Objects -> JSON) and Rails. Before we get onto doing a MapReduce on this data you need to ensure it's getting loaded into the database quickly enough. Chances are you should architect the whole thing so that your MapReduce supports your reporting functionality. For sync'ing of data you shouldn't need to do anything but pass the JSON around. If your data isn't writing into your DB fast enough you should consider Sharding your dataset. This will probably be done using some user-based key but you know your data schema better than I do. You need choose you sharding key so that when multiple users are sync'ing at the same time they will probably be using different servers.
Once you've solved Problems 1 and 2 you need to work on your Reporting. This is probably supported by your MapReduce functions inside Mongo. My first comment on this part, is to make sure you're running at least Mongo 2.0. In that release 10gen sped up MapReduce (my tests indicate that it is substantially faster than 1.8). Other than this you can can achieve further increases by Sharding and directing reads to the the Secondary servers in your Replica set (you are using a Replica set?). If this still isn't working consider structuring your schema to support your reporting functionality. This lets you use more cycles on your clients to do work rather than loading your servers. But this optimisation should be left until after you've proven that conventional approaches won't work.
I hope that wall of text helps somewhat. Good luck!
I have a multi-user application that keeps a centralized logfile for activity. Right now, that logging is going into text files to the tune of about 10MB-50MB / day. The text files are rotated daily by the logger, and we keep the past 4 or 5 days worth. Older than that is of no interest to us.
They're read rarely: either when developing the application for error messages, diagnostic messages, or when the application is in production to do triage on a user-reported problem or a bug.
(This is strictly an application log. Security logging is kept elsewhere.)
But when they are read, they're a pain in the ass. Grepping 10MB text files is no fun even with Perl: the fields (transaction ID, user ID, etc..) in the file are useful, but just text. Messages are written sequentially, one like at a time, so interleaved activity is all mixed up when trying to follow a particular transaction or user.
I'm looking for thoughts on the topic. Anyone done application-level logging with an SQL database and liked it? Hated it?
I think that logging directly to a database is usually a bad idea, and I would avoid it.
The main reason is this: a good log will be most useful when you can use it to debug your application post-mortem, once the error has already occurred and you can't reproduce it. To be able to do that, you need to make sure that the logging itself is reliable. And to make any system reliable, a good start is to keep it simple.
So having a simple file-based log with just a few lines of code (open file, append line, close file or keep it opened, repeat...) will usually be more reliable and useful in the future, when you really need it to work.
On the other hand, logging successfully to an SQL server will require that a lot more components work correctly, and there will be a lot more possible error situations where you won't be able to log the information you need, simply because the log infrastructure itself won't be working. And something worst: a failure in the log procedure (like a database corruption or a deadlock) will probably affect the performance of the application, and then you'll have a situation where a secondary component prevents the application of performing it's primary function.
If you need to do a lot of analysis of the logs and you are not comfortable using text-based tools like grep, then keep the logs in text files, and periodically import them to an SQL database. If the SQL fails you won't loose any log information, and it won't even affect the application's ability to function. Then you can do all the data analysis in the DB.
I think those are the main reasons why I don't do logging to a database, although I have done it in the past. Hope it helps.
We used a Log Database at my last job, and it was great.
We had stored procedures that would spit out overviews of general system health for different metrics that I could load from a web page. We could also quickly spit out a trace for a given app over a given period, and if I wanted it was easy to get that as a text file, if you really just like grep-ing files.
To ensure the logging system does not itself become a problem, there is of course a common code framework we used among different apps that handled writing to the log table. Part of that framework included also logging to a file, in case the problem is with the database itself, and part of it involves cycling the logs. As for the space issues, the log database is on a different backup schedule, and it's really not an issue. Space (not-backed-up) is cheap.
I think that addresses most of the concerns expressed elsewhere. It's all a matter of implementation. But if I stopped here it would still be a case of "not much worse", and that's a bad reason to go the trouble of setting up DB logging. What I liked about this is that it allowed us to do some new things that would be much harder to do with flat files.
There were four main improvements over files. The first is the system overviews I've already mentioned. The second, and imo most important, was a check to see if any app was missing messages where we would normally expect to find them. That kind of thing is near-impossible to spot in traditional file logging unless you spend a lot of time each day reviewing mind-numbing logs for apps that just tell you everything's okay 99% of the time. It's amazing how freeing the view to show missing log entries is. Most days we didn't need to look at most of the log files at all... something that would be dangerous and irresponsible without the database.
That brings up the third improvement. We generated a single daily status e-mail, and it was the only thing we needed to review on days that everything ran normally. The e-mail included showed errors and warnings. Missing logs were re-logged as warning by the same db job that sends the e-mail, and missing the e-mail was a big deal. We could send forward a particular log message to our bug tracker with one click, right from within the daily e-mail (it was html-formatted, pulled data from a web app).
The final improvement was that if we did want to follow a specific app more closely, say after making a change, we could subscribe to an RSS feed for that specific application until we were satisfied. It's harder to do that from a text file.
Where I'm at now, we rely a lot more on third party tools and their logging abilities, and that means going back to a lot more manual review. I really miss the DB, and I'm contemplated writing a tool to read those logs and re-log them into a DB to get these abilities back.
Again, we did this with text files as a fallback, and it's the new abilities that really make the database worthwhile. If all you're gonna do is write to a DB and try to use it the same way you did the old text files, it adds unnecessary complexity and you may as well just use the old text files. It's the ability to build out the system for new features that makes it worthwhile.
yeah, we do it here, and I can't stand it. One problem we have here is if there is a problem with the db (connection, corrupted etc), all logging stops. My other big problem with it is that it's difficult to look through to trace problems. We also have problems here with the table logs taking up too much space, and having to worry about truncating them when we move databases because our logs are so large.
I think its clunky compared to log files. I find it difficult to see the "big picture" with it being stored in the database. I'll admit I'm a log file person, I like being able to open a text file and look through (regex) it instead of using sql to try and search for something.
The last place I worked we had log files of 100 meg plus. They're a little difficult to open, but if you have the right tool it's not that bad. We had a system to log messages too. You could quickly look at the file and determine which set of log entries belonged which process.
We've used SQL Server centralized logging before, and as the previous posted mentioned, the biggest problem was that interrupted connectivity to the database would mean interrupted logging. I actually ended up adding a queuing routine to the logging that would try the DB first, and write to a physical file if it failed. You'd just have to add code to that routine that, on a successful log to the db, would check to see if any other entries are queued locally, and write those too.
I like having everything in a DB, as opposed to physical log files, but just because I like parsing it with reports I've written.
I think the problem you have with logging could be solved with logging to SQL, provided that you are able to split out the fields you are interested in, into different columns. You can't treat the SQL database like a text field and expect it to be better, it won't.
Once you get everything you're interested in logging to the columns you want it in, it's much easier to track the sequential actions of something by being able to isolate it by column. Like if you had an "entry" process, you log everything normally with the text "entry process" being put into the "logtype" column or "process" column. Then when you have problems with the "entry process", a WHERE statement on that column isolates all entry processes.
we do it in our organization in large volumes with SQL Server. In my openion writing to database is better because of the search and filter capability. Performance wise 10 to 50 MB worth of data and keeping it only for 5 days, does not affect your application. Tracking transaction and users will be very easy compare to tracking it from text file since you can filter by transaction or user.
You are mentioning that the files read rarely. So, decide if is it worth putting time in development effort to develop the logging framework? Calculate your time spent on searching the logs from log files in a year vs the time it will take to code and test. If the time spending is 1 hour or more a day to search logs it is better to dump logs in to database. Which can drastically reduce time spend on solving issues.
If you spend less than an hour then you can use some text search tools like "SRSearch", which is a great tool that I used, searches from multiple files in a folder and gives you the results in small snippts ("like google search result"), where you click to open the file with the result interested. There are other Text search tools available too. If the environment is windows, then you have Microsoft LogParser also a good tool available for free where you can query your file like a database if the file is written in a specific format.
Here are some additional pros and cons and the reason why I prefer log files instead of databases:
Space is not that cheap when using VPS's. Recovering space on live database systems is often a huge hassle and you might have to shut down services while recovering space. If your logs is so important that you have to keep them for years (like we do) then this is a real problem. Remember that most databases does not recover space when you delete data as it simply re-uses the space - not much help if you are actually running out of space.
If you access the logs fequently and you have to pull daily reports from a database with one huge log table and millions and millions of records then you will impact the performance of your database services while querying the data from the database.
Log files can be created and older logs archived daily. Depending on the type of logs massive amounts of space can be recovered by archiving logs. We save around 6x the space when we compress our logs and in most cases you'll probably save much more.
Individual smaller log files can be compressed and transferred easily without impacting the server. Previously we had logs ranging in the 100's of GB's worth of data in a database. Moving such large databases between servers becomes a major hassle, especially due to the fact that you have to shut down the database server while doing so. What I'm saying is that maintenance becomes a real pain the day you have to start moving large databases around.
Writing to log files in general are a lot faster than writing to DB. Don't underestimate the speed of your operating system file IO.
Log files only suck if you don't structure your logs properly. You may have to use additional tools and you may even have to develop your own to help process them, but in the end it will be worth it.
You could log to a comma or tab delimited text format, or enable your logs to be exported to a CSV format. When you need to read from a log export your CSV file to a table on your SQL server then you can query with standard SQL statements. To automate the process you could use SQL Integration Services.
I've been reading all the answers and they're great. But in a company I worked due to several restrictions and audit it was mandatory to log into a database. Anyway, we had several ways to log and the solution was to install a pipeline where our programmers could connect to the pipeline and log into database, file, console, or even forwarding log to a port to be consumed by another applications.
This pipeline doesn't interrupt the normal process and keeping a log file at the same time you log into the database ensures you rarely lose a line.
I suggest you investigate further log4net that it's great for this.
http://logging.apache.org/log4net/
I could see it working well, provided you had the capability to filter what needs to be logged and when it needs to be logged. A log file (or table, such as it is) is useless if you can't find what you're looking for or contains unnecessary information.
Since your logs are read rarely, I would write them on file (better performance and reliability).
Then, if and only if you need to read them, I would import the log file in a data base (better analysis).
Doing so, you get the advantages of both methods.
I often use the "top" command to see what is taking up resources. Mostly it comes up with a long list of Apache httpd processes, which is not very useful. Is there any way to see a similar list, but such that I could see which PHP scripts etc. those httpd processes are actually running?
If you're concerned about long running processes (i.e. requests that take more than a second or two to execute), you'll be able to get an idea of them using Apache's mod_status. See the documentation, and an example of the output (from www.apache.org). This isn't unique to PHP, but applies to anything running inside an apache process.
Note that the www.apache.org status output is publicly available presumably for demonstration purposes -- you'd want to restrict access to yours so that not everyone can see it.
There's a top-like ncurses-based utility called apachetop which provides realtime log analysis for Apache. Unfortunately, the project has been abandoned and the code suffers from some bugs, however it's actually very much usable. Just don't run it as root, run it as any user with access to the web server log files and you should be fine.
The php scripts happen so fast, top wouldn't show you very much. Or it would zip by quite quickly. Most webrequests are quite quick.
I think your best bet would be to have some type of real time log processor, that kept an eye on your access logs and updates stats for you of average run time, memory usage and stuff like that.
You could make your PHP pages time themselves and write their path and execution time to file or database. Note that would slow everything down while you were monitoring, but it would serve as a good measuring method.
It wouldn't be that interactive though. You'd be able to get daily or weekly results from it, but it'd be hard to see something meaningful within minutes or hours.