I am looking for insert IIS 6.0 access log ( 5 servers, and over 400MB daily ) to SQL database. What scares me is the size. There is a lot of information you are duplicating (i.e. site name, url, referrer, browser) and could be normalized by index and look-up table.
Reason why I am looking for own database instead using other tools is that is 5 servers and I need very custom statistics and reports on each, few or all. Also installing any (specially open source) software is massacre ( need have 125% functionality and take months ).
I wounder what would be the most efficient way to do it? Is someone saw examples or articles about it ?
Whilst I would suggest buying a decent log parsing tool if you insist on going it alone, take a look at Log Parser
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/en/details.aspx?FamilyID=890cd06b-abf8-4c25-91b2-f8d975cf8c07&displaylang=en
to help you do some of the heavy listing, either into SQL or maybe it can get the results you are after directly.
On the one hand, you will reduce disk space for values a lot by using artificial keys for things like server IP address, user agent, and referrer. Some of that space you save will be lost to the index, but the overall disk savings for 400 MB per day, times 5 servers, should still be substantial.
The tradeoff, of course, is the need to use joins to bring that information back together for reporting.
My nitpick is that replacing one column's values with an artificial key to a two-column lookup table shouldn't be called "normalizing". You can do that without identifying any functional dependencies. (I'm not certain you're proposing to do that, but it sounds like it.)
You're looking at about 12 gigs a month in raw data, right? Did you consider approaching it from a data warehousing point of view? (Instead of an OLTP point of view.)
Related
I have a new idea and question about that I would like to ask you.
We have a CRM application on-premise / in house. We use that application kind of 24X7. We also do billing and payroll on the same CRM database which is OLTP and also same thing with SSRS reports.
It looks like whenever we do operation in front end which does inserts and updates to couple of entities at the same time, our application gets frozen until that process finishes. e.g. extracting payroll for 500 employees for their activities during last 2 weeks. Basically it summarize total working hours pulls that numbers from database and writes/updates that record where it says extract has been accomplished. so for 500 employees we are looking at around 40K-50K rows for Insert/Select/Update statements together.
Nobody can do anything while this process runs! We are considering the following options to take care of this issue.
Running this process in off-hours
OR make a copy of DB of Dyna. CRM and do this operations(extracting thousands of records and running multiple reports) on copy.
My questions are:
how to create first of all copy and where to create it (best practices)?
How to make it synchronize in real-time.
if we do select statement operation in copy DB than it's OK, but if we do any insert/update on copy how to reflect that on actual live db? , in short how to make sure both original and copy DB are synchronize to each other in real time.
I know I asked too many questions, but being SQL person, stepping into CRM team and providing suggestion, you know what I am trying to say.
Thanks folks for your any suggestion in advance.
Well to answer your question in regards to the live "copy" of a database a good solution is an alwayson availability group.
https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/canitpro/2013/08/19/step-by-step-creating-a-sql-server-2012-alwayson-availability-group/
Though I dont think that is what you are going to want in this situation. Alwayson availability groups are typically for database instances that require very low failure time frames. For example: If the primary DB server goes down in the cluster it fails over to a secondary in a second or two at the most and the end users only notice a slight hiccup for a second.
What I think you would find better is to look at those insert statements that are hitting your database server and seeing why they are preventing you from pulling data. If they are truly locking the table maybe changing a large amount of your reads to "nolock" reads might help remedy your situation.
It would also be helpful to know what kind of resources you have allocated and also if you have proper indexing on the core tables for your DB. If you dont have proper indexing then a lot of the queries can take longer then normal causing the locking your seeing.
Finally I would recommend table partitioning if the tables you are pulling against are to large. This can help with a lot of disk speed issues potentially and also help optimize your querys if you partition by time segment (i.e. make a new partition every X months so when a query pulls from one time segment they only pull from that one data file).
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms190787.aspx
I would say you need to focus on efficiency more then a "copy database" as your volumes arent very high to be needing anything like that from the sounds of it. I currently have a sql server transaction database running with 10 million+ inserts on it a day and I still have live reports hit against it. You just need the resources and proper indexing to accommodate.
I am just starting with biquery, my DB is small (10K of rows 1 table) and my queries are simple count and group by.
Its takes and average of 3-4 sec per request but sometimes its jumps to 10 and event 15sec
I am querying from amazon linux server in Irland using the BQ tool.
Is it possible to get results faster (under 1sec) so I will be able to present my webpages faster.
1) Big Query is a highly scalable database, before being a "super fast" database. It's designed to process HUGE amount of data distributing the processing among several different machines using a technique named Dremel. Because it's designed to use several machines and parallel processing, you should expect to have super-scalability with a good performance.
2) BigQuery is an asset when you want to analyze billions of rows.
For example: analyzing all the wikipedia revisions in 5-10 seconds isn't bad, is it? But even a much smaller table would take about the same time, even if has 10k rows.
3) Under this size, you'll be better off using more traditional data storage solutions such as Cloud SQL or the App Engine Datastore. If you want to keep SQL capability, Cloud SQL is the best guess.
Sybase IQ is often installed in a single database and it doesn't use Dremel. That said, it's going to be faster than Big Query in many scenarios...as designed.
4) Certainly the performance differ from a dedicated environment. You get your dedicated environment for 20K$ a month.
That's the expected behaviour. In BigQuery you are using a shared infrastructure, so depending on the use at the moment you will get better or worse response time. Actually batch queries (those not needing interactivity) are encouraged and rewarded by not adding up to your quota.
You typically don't use BigQuery as your main database to show data in your web application. Depending on what you want to do, BigQuery can be a Big Data storage and you should have another intermediate store where you could store computed results to display to your users. Or maybe in your use case you don't really need BigQuery and there is a better solution.
In any case, you are not going to be able to avoid a few seconds wait (even if you go Premium, you get more guarantees about the service, but in no case a service fast enough as to be your main backend for a webapp)
I'm refactoring my current schema and it's too abstract for me.
I monitor my servers with a homemade monitoring software. This software sends HTTP requests to a Rails web server with about ten different fields worth of information so I can get a quick overview of everything.
My current implementation:
server [id, name, created_date, edited_date, ..., etc ]
status_update [id, server_id, field1, field2, field3, created_date, edited_date, ..., etc]
I treat the servers as Users and status updates as Tweets. I delete any status_update on a server_id older than the tenth one just to keep from growing to infinity.
Though I'm starting to run into a few complications. I need to display information from the most recent status_update on the index page, I need to sort the servers based on status_update info, I need to store info from certain status_updates that may be way older than 10 status_updates old. It also seems like I'm going to start needing to store information from status_updates in both the server and status_update, which would cause hitting the DB multiple times on an insert. Thus, I am looking to refactor.
My requirements:
I only need to display information from the most recent update.
Having the next 9 status_updates helps debug if the system goes offline.
I need to be able to sort based on some info from most recent status_update.
I need the database to remain small (Heroku free).
Ideal performance, IE not hitting database more than once unless necessary.
Non-Complicated DB structure so I can pass it along.
Edit: Additional Info => I am looking to ultimately monitor about 150-200 servers (a lot for a hobby dev, but I'm cheap). Each monitoring service posts every five minutes or so unless something goes wrong. So, worst case scenario has me reaching max capacity every four hours.
I was thinking it would be nice to track when the last time X event happened, and what the result was. Thus, tracking that information would have to be moved to the server model itself since I'm wiping out old records and would lose the information after an hour or so. Though in retrospect, I could just save that info in memory using the monitoring service and send it up every five minutes or only once each time it changes. I could also simply edit that information only when it changes, so as to process less information on each request. Hm!
Efficiency
All ORMs, including ActiveRecord, are designed and built around certain tradeoffs. It's commonplace for ORMs to use several simple SELECT statements to do what a SQL developer would do with a single SELECT statement. You're probably not overwhelming Heroku with your queries.
There's no reasonable structural solution to this problem.
Size
Your "status_update" table should be able to hold an enormous number of rows. Heroku's hobby-dev plan allows 10,000 rows. How many servers do you seriously expect to monitor on a free plan? If I were you, I would delete old rows from it no more than once a day, or when I got a permission error. (On Heroku, certain permission errors mean you're over the row limit.)
It also seems like I'm going to start needing to store information
from status_updates in both the server and status_update, which would
cause hitting the DB multiple times on an insert.
This really makes little sense. Tweets don't require updates to the user account; status updates don't require updates about the server. This might suggest refactoring is in order, but I'd want to see either your models or your CREATE TABLE statements to be sure. (You can paste those into your question, and leave a comment here.)
Alternatives
I'd seriously consider running this Rails app on a local machine, writing data to a database on the local machine, especially if you intend to target 200 web servers. This would eliminate all Heroku row limits, and you don't really need to run it 24 hours a day if this is just a hobby. If you're doing this professionally, your income from it should easily cover the cost of a hobby-basic plan on Heroku. (Currently $9.00/month.) But even then I'd think hard about hosting this locally.
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.
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.