I'm currently writing a web crawler (using the python framework scrapy).
Recently I had to implement a pause/resume system.
The solution I implemented is of the simplest kind and, basically, stores links when they get scheduled, and marks them as 'processed' once they actually are.
Thus, I'm able to fetch those links (obviously there is a little bit more stored than just an URL, depth value, the domain the link belongs to, etc ...) when resuming the spider and so far everything works well.
Right now, I've just been using a mysql table to handle those storage action, mostly for fast prototyping.
Now I'd like to know how I could optimize this, since I believe a database shouldn't be the only option available here. By optimize, I mean, using a very simple and light system, while still being able to handle a great amount of data written in short times
For now, it should be able to handle the crawling for a few dozen of domains, which means storing a few thousand links a second ...
Thanks in advance for suggestions
The fastest way of persisting things is typically to just append them to a log -- such a totally sequential access pattern minimizes disk seeks, which are typically the largest part of the time costs for storage. Upon restarting, you re-read the log and rebuild the memory structures that you were also building on the fly as you were appending to the log in the first place.
Your specific application could be further optimized since it doesn't necessarily require 100% reliability -- if you miss writing a few entries due to a sudden crash, ah well, you'll just crawl them again. So, your log file can be buffered and doesn't need to be obsessively fsync'ed.
I imagine the search structure would also fit comfortably in memory (if it's only for a few dozen sites you could probably just keep a set with all their URLs, no need for bloom filters or anything fancy) -- if it didn't, you might have to keep in memory only a set of recent entries, and periodically dump that set to disk (e.g., merging all entries into a Berkeley DB file); but I'm not going into excruciating details about these options since it does not appear you will require them.
There was a talk at PyCon 2009 that you may find interesting, Precise state recovery and restart for data-analysis applications by Bill Gribble.
Another quick way to save your application state may be to use pickle to serialize your application state to disk.
Related
The Project
I've been asked to work on an interesting project -- what amounts to a basic Web CMS -- that uses HTML/CSS/jQuery with PHP. However, one requirement is that there won't be a database to house the data (they want flat files for the documents/pages -- preferable in JSON format).
In a very basic sense, it'll be used to generate HTML pages via a very "non-techie" interface. Each installation would only have around 20 pages, but a few may get up to 100. It has to be fairly easy to drop onto a PHP capable server and run, with very little setup needed.
What's Out There
There are tons of CMS options and quite a few flat file versions. But an OSS or other existing CMS is not an option. They need a simple propriety system.
Initial Thoughts
So flat files it is... but I'd really like to get some feedback on the drawbacks, and if it is worth the effort to try and convince them to use something like MySQL (SQLite or CouchDB are out since none of the servers can be configured to run them at the present time).
Of course the document files are pretty straightforward, but we're also talking about login info for 1 or 2 admins per installation, a few lists, as well as configs/settings (which also can easily be stored in a file with protection).
The Dilemma
If there are benefits to using MySQL rather than JOSN formatted files and some arrays in a simple project like this -- beyond my own pre-conceived notions :) -- I'll be sure to argue them.
But honestly I can't see any that outweigh their need to not have a database system.
I'd appreciate you insight and opinions.
If you can't cite a specific need for relational table design, then you're good with flat files. Build as specified. The moment you can cite a specific need, let them know; upgrading isn't that hard, if you're perception is timely (that is, if you aren;t in the position of having to normalize data that should have been integrated earlier).
It's a shame you can't use CouchDB, this seems like the perfect application for it. Keep in mind that using flat-files severely constrains your architecture and, especially, scalability.
What's the best case scenario for your CMS app? It's successful and people want to use it more? If you're using flat-files it'll be harder to service and improve your system (e.g. make it more robust, and add new features for future versions) and performance will not scale well. So "success" in this case is at best short-lived, as success translates into more and more work for less and less gains in feature-set and performance.
Then again, if the CSM is designed right, then switching between a flat file to RDMS should be as simple as using a different data access file.
Will this be installed on any shared hosting sites. For this to work somewhat safely, a mechanism like suEXEC needs to be set up properly as the web server will need write permissions to various directories.
What would be cool with a simple site that was feed via JSON and jQuery is that the site wouldn't need to load on each click. Just the relevant data would change. You could then use hashes in the location bar to keep track of where you were (ex. http://localhost/#about)
The problem being if they are editing the raw JSON file they can mess it up pretty quick. I think your admin tools would have to generate the JSON files based on the input so that you can ensure nothing breaks. The admin tools would be more entailed then the site (though isn't that always the case with dynamic sites)
What is the predicted data sizes for the CMS?
A large reason for the use of a RDMS is quick,specific access to large amounts of data. The data format might not be large, but if there is a lot of the data, then it might be better in the long run for a RDMS.
Then again, if the CSM is designed right, then switching between a flat file to RDMS should be as simple as using a different data access file.
While an RDBMS may be necessary for a very large CMS, a small one could run off flat files very well. A lot of CMS products out there fall down in that regard, I think, by throwing an RDBMS into the mix when there's no real need.
However, if you are using flat files, there are security issues which others have highlighted. Another issue I've come across is hosting providers using the disable_functions directive in php.ini to disable file I/O functions like fopen() and friends. If you're hosting your CMS on a box you control, you won't have this problem but if you're using a third-party provider, check first.
As the original poster, I wasn't signed in, so I'm following up to the answers so far in an answer (sorry if this is bad form).
There may instances where this is on
a shared host.
Though the JSON files can technically
be edited, this won't be the case.
The admin interface will be robust
enough to do all of the creating/editing of pages
The size for each install will be
relatively small -- 1 - 2 admins,
10-100 pages. A few lists of common
items may run longer (snippets of
copy for example).
Security will be a big issue -- any
other options suggestions on this
specifically?
Well, isn't there a problem with they being distrustful to any database system? Isn't the problem more in their thinking than in technology? Maybe they are afraid of database because it sounds complex to them. In that case, if you just present them some very simple CMS (like CMS made simple, which I've heard is really simple and the learning process is very fast), if they see everything is easy then may be they just don't care what's behind, if it's a database or whatever!
They could hear to arguments like better maintenance, lower cost of maintenance, much better handover to another webmaster than proprietary solutions (they are not dependent on you) etc.
I have an interesting situation where I'm near the end of an evaluation period for a RavenDB prototype for use with a project at our company. The reason it's interesting is that 99.99% of the time, I believe it fits Raven's sweet spot; it repeatedly queries for new data, often, and in small batches (< 1000 documents at a time).
However, we do have an initial load period, where we need to load two days' worth of data, which can be 3 million (or more) records in some cases.
A diagram might help:
It's the Transfer Service that is responsible for getting the correct data out of three production databases and storing it in RavenDB. The WCF service will query this data and make it available to its clients.
Once we do the initial load of millions of records/documents into RavenDB, we'll rarely have to do that again.
As an initial load test, on a machine with 4GB RAM and two processors, it took just over 23 minutes to read the initial data. In this case, it was only about 1.28 million records. I eliminated all async operations from this initial load, because I wanted each read to not be interfered with by other read operations. I found the best results this way.
I know it's not recommended, but to accomplish all this, I had to change settings that aren't recommended to be changed:
I had to increase the timeout:
documentStore.JsonRequestFactory.ConfigureRequest += (e, x) => ((HttpWebRequest)x.Request).Timeout = ravenTimeoutInMilliseconds;
In the Raven.Server.exe.config, I had to increase the page size (to int.MaxValue):
<add key="Raven/MaxPageSize" value="2147483647"/>
And in my retrieval methods, I had to use Take(int.MaxValue):
return session.Query<T>().Where(whereClause).Take(int.MaxValue).ToList();
Remember this is all for that one-time, initial load. After that, it's many queries, quickly, and often. I should also note that each document is self-contained in RavenDB. There are no relationships to manage.
Knowing all this, is RavenDB a good fit?
A good fit for what?
Full text search? Yes. Background aggregations (map/reduce ones)? Yes. Easy replication and sharding, say scaling? Yes...
Ad-hoc reporting? No. Support for probably thousands of third party tools? No...
If you're talking about performance, you probably want to look at Orens latest post on that. His numbers are quite similar to your ones: http://ayende.com/blog/154913/ravendb-amp-freedb-an-optimization-story
From what I understand of your question, you need to "prep" the WCF web-service. To do this you read 1.2M docs from RavenDB (in about 23 mins) and hold them in memory, so the WCF service can then serve queries from them, is this right? Or am I missing something?
Why not get the WCF service to send it's queries to Raven one-at-a-time? I.e. for each query it gets from a Client, ask RavenDB to do the query for it?
From what you've told us in the other answers comments, I believe the only good way to serve the wcf clients fast enough, is to actually store everything in memory, so just the way you do it now.
The question, if RavenDB is a good fit for that situation depends on whether your data model benefits in others way from the document oriented nature. So, in case you have dynamic data that would require some kind of EAV in a relational databases and lots of joins, then RavenDB will probably be a very good solution. However, if you just need something you can throw flat data in, then I would go with a relational database here. In terms of licensing costs and ease of use, you might also want to take a look at PostgreSql, as this is a really awesome database that comes completely free.
I'm working on an ASP.net web application that uses SQL as a database back-end. One issue that I have is that it sometimes takes a while to get my DBA to create or modify tables in the database which under no circumstance am I allowed to modify on my own.
Here is something that I do is when I expect users to upload files with their data.
Suppose the user uploads a new record for a table called Student_Records. The user uploads a record with fname Bob and lname Smith. The record is assigned primary key 123 The user also uploads two files: attendance_record.pdf and homework_record.pdf. Let's suppose that I have a network share: \\foo\bar where the files are saved.
One way of handling this situtation would be to have a table Student_Records_Files that associates the key 123 with Bob Smith. However, since I have trouble getting tables created, I've gone and done something different: When I save the files on the server, I call them 123_attendance_record.pdf and 123_homework_record.pdf. That way, I can easily identify what table record each file is associated with without having to create a new SQL table. I am, in essence, using the file system itself as a join table (Obviously, the file system is a type of database).
In my code for retrieving the files, I scan the directory \\foo\bar and look for files that begin with each primary key number from Student_Records.
It seems to work very well, but is it good practice?
There is nothing wrong with using the file system to store files. It's what it is used for.
There are a few things to keep in mind though.
I would consider a better method of storing the files - perhaps a directory for each user, rather than simply appending the user id to the filename.
Ensure that the file store is resilient and backed up with the same regularity as your database. If your database is configured to give you a backup every 10 minutes, but your file store only does a backup every day (or worse week) then you might be in for a world of pain.
Also consider what would happen if the user uploads two documents that are the same name.
First of all, I think it's a bad practice, in general, to design your architecture based on how responsive your DBA is. Any given compromise based on this approach may or may not be a big deal, but over time it will result in a poorly designed system.
Second, making the file name this critical seems dangerous to me; there's no protection against a person or application modifying the filename without realizing its importance.
Third, one of the advantages of having a table to maintain the join between the person and the file is that you can add additional data, such as: when was the file uploaded, what is the MIME type, has the file been read by anyone through the system, is this file a newer version of a previous file, etc. etc. Metadata can be very powerful, and the filesystem offers only limited ways to store it.
There are really two questions here. One is, given that for administrative reasons you cannot get changes made to the database schema, is it acceptable to devise some workaround. To that I'd have to say yes. What else can you do? In theory, if it takes two weeks to get the DBA to make a schema change for you, then this two weeks should be added to any deadline that you are given. In practice, this almost never happens. I've often worked places where some paperwork or whatever required two weeks before I could even begin work, and then I'd be given two weeks and one day to do the project. Sometimes you just have to put it together with rubber bands and bandaids.
Two is, is it a good idea to build a naming convention into file names and use this to identify files and their relationship to other data. I've done this at times and it's generally worked for me, though I have a perhaps irrational emotional feeling that it's not a good idea.
On the plus side, (a) By building information into a file name, you make it easy for both the computer and a human being to identify file associations. (Human readable as long as the naming convention is straightforward enough, anyway.) (b) By eliminating the separate storage of a link, you eliminate the possibility of a bad link. A file with the appropriate name may not exist, of course, but a database record with appropriate keys may not exist, or the file reference in such a record may be null or invalid. So it seems to solve one problem there without creating any new problems.
Potential minuses are: (a) You may have characters in the key that are not legal in file names. You may be able to just strip such characters out, or this may cause duplicates. The only safe thing to do is to escape them in some way, which is a pain. (b) You may exceed the legal length of a file name. Not as much of an issue as it was in the bad old 8.3 days. (c) You can't share files. If a database record points to a file, then two db records could point to the same file. If you must make two copies of a file, not only does this waste disk space, but it also means that if the file is updated, you must be sure to update all copies. If in your application it would make no sense to share files, than this isn't an issue.
You have to manage the files in some way, but you had to do that anyway.
I really can't think of any over-riding minuses. As I say, I've done this on occassion and didn't run into any particular problems. I'm interested in seeing others' responses.
I think it is not good practice because you are making your working application very dependent on specific implementation details and it would make it pretty hard to work with in the future to maintain, or if other people later needed access to your code/api.
Now weather you should do this or not is a whole different question. If you are really taking that much of a performance hit and it is significantly easier to work with how you have it, then I would say go ahead and break the rules. Ideally its good to follow best practice methods, but sometimes you have to bend the rules a little to make things work.
First, why is this a table change as opposed to a data change? Once you have the tables set up you should only need to update rows in that table every time that a user adds new files. If you have to put up with this one-time, two-week delay then bite the bullet and just get it done right.
Second, instead of trying to work around the problem why don't you try to fix the problem? Why is the process of implementing table changes so slow? Are you at least able to work on a development database (in which you have control to test and try out these changes)? Even if it's your own laptop you can at least continue on with development. Work with your manager, the DBA, and whoever else you need to, in order to improve the process. Would it help to speed things up if your scripts went through a formal testing process before you handed them off to the DBA so that he doesn't need to test the scripts, etc. himself?
Third, if this is a production database then you should probably be building in this two-week delay into your development cycle. You know that it takes two weeks for the DBA to review and implement changes in production, so make sure that if you have a deadline for releasing functionality that you have enough lead time for it.
Building this kind of "data" into a filename has inherent problems as others have pointed out. You have no relational integrity guarantees and the "data" can be changed without knowledge of the rest of the application/database.
It's best to keep everything in the database.
Network file I/O is spotty at best. In addition, its slower than the DB I/O.
If the DBA is difficult in getting small changes into the database, you
may be dealing with:
A political control issue. Maybe he just knows DB stuff and is threatened
when he perceives others moving in on his turf. Whatever his reasons, you need
to GET WORK DONE. Period. Document all the extra time / communication / work
you need to do for each small change and take that up with the management.
If the first level of management is unwilling to see things your way,
(it does not matter what their reasons are), escalate the issue
to the next level of management. In the past, I've gotten results this way.
It was more of a political territory problem than a technical problem.
The DBA eventually gave up and gave me full access to the TEST system BUT
he also stipulated that I would need to learn his testing process,
naming convention, his DB standards and practices, his way of testing, etc.
I was game.
I would also need to fix any database problems arising from changes I introduced.
This was fair and I got to wear the DBA hat in addition to the developer hat.
I got the freedom I needed and he got one less thing to worry about.
A process issue. Maybe the DBA needs to put every small DB change you submit
through a gauntlet of testing and performance analysis. Maybe he has a highly
normalized DB schema and because he has the big picture, he needs to normalize or
denormalize your requested DB changes to fit into the existing schema.
Ask to work with him. Ask him for a full DB design diagram.
Get a good sense of his DB design philosophy. Implement your DB changes with
his DB design philosophy in mind. Show that you understand that he's trying
to keep the DB in good order (understand normalization, relational constraints,
check constraints) Give him less to worry about. He needs to trust that you
will not muck up his database.
Accumulate all the small changes into a lengthy script and submit them to the DBA.
This way, you won't have to wait for each small change to go through all of his
process / testing. In addition, you're giving him a bigger picture view of your
development planning (that is in step with his DB design philosophy) instead of
just the play by play.
I'm using VB.Net, and I have a set of data which I have to able to filter through fairly quickly. Basically, the program is like google sugest, but instead of a drop-down menu, I'm using a listbox. When a user enters a word, I compare the word using LINQ and filter those that contain the user's input. The data are all strings of variable length (from 0 to 200 characters, most on 150 character mark), and I have 240,000+ of this strings and counting- all stored in an XML file.
A colleague of mine told me that loading all of that to memory (using VB.Net's XML serializer plus collections of string/objects) is not practical, and would slow the 'startup' time of the program. I haven't finished building the program yet and I'm having second thoughts about continuing this path.
So, my question is: Should I continue with my current approach on the problem (which is load everything to memory on startup), or is there a better way of solving my dilemma?
If you want to prevent startup time and keeping it in memory isn't an issue on performance, then load it asynchronously. Although loading 240.000+ strings from an XML and keeping it in memory doesn't sound like the greatest idea. Probably a database would be the better approach. Or at least some format like JSON that's faster to parse.
Depends on a number of things:
If
((you know the strings will not hugely increase in number) &&
(you know the spec of the machines that will run your app) &&
(you are able to test that the load time is *good enough* on the above spec))
{
**don't bother changing approach.**
}
else
{
**change approach.**
}
The alternative approach is obviously some kind of asynch lazy-load.
You're talking about loading roughly 36MB of strings. While this isn't a daunting amount by any means (though you could probably load it faster reading the XML yourself...I wouldn't go with the serialization engine if I was worried about performance), it's also a non-trivial amount. You're looking a adding a couple of seconds to your startup time, assuming you don't do it asynchronously as Mircea suggests.
If you do do it asynchronously, you'll have to ensure that any UI process that relies on the data doesn't occur until after it has loaded. That may be a difficult thing to ensure.
The question seems to imply an online application. A few suggestions if that is the case:
The data could / should be zipped. I suspect it would compress very nicely.
Maybe the data could be cached accross multiple sessions, possibly be delivered as html content with a expiry cache date as appropriate. This would save systematic loading, and may be feasible if the data isn't updated frequently.
The suggestion feature feature could be initially disabled (i.e. say showing a "loading..." message while the application initializes the cache, asynchronously). In this fashion the application would be quickly available upon startup, even though the suggest feature may lag by up to say 30 seconds or so.
Edit: Independently of how the data gets downloaded and cached, I second the opinion of Mircea Grelus that an xml file of this size is a poor substitute for a database.
It may not be a bad idea to load the XML into memory when the app starts up. But if you go this route I'd look into using the BackgroundWorker thread. The idea would be to load the XML into memory asynchronously so the UI is still responsive as this is going on. As far as the user is concerned the app shouldn't appear to start any slower, and yet once done the Google-suggest-like feature should be significantly faster.
I must say that even in memory this is an inherently inefficient operation since you have no advantage of using an index when querying an XML file in this way. This is something that would be 10X faster in SQL with full-text searching.
Of course XML has the advantage of being self-contained and requiring no additional components. And that makes it a decent choice for small desktop apps that query small amounts of data. Otherwise I would consider using a database for better performance.
You might be better served by using binary serialization rather than XML serialization to persist the data that your app reads on startup, particularly if you end up implementing a data structure that's faster to search than a `StringCollection. You'd still maintain the XML version of the data somewhere, of course.
And by all means, use a BackgroundWorker to load the data asynchronously if that'll make your application feel more responsive.
What am I trying to do?
A UI process that reads data from a Core Data store on disk. It wouldn't need to edit the data, just read and display the data.
A command line process that writes to the same data store as accessed by the UI.
Why?
So that the command line process can be running all the time but the user can quit the UI process and forget about the app until they need to look at the data it's captured.
What would be the simplest and most reliable way of achieving this?
What Have I Tried?
I've read up on sharing a data store between threads and implemented this once before, but I can't find anything in the docs or on the web indicating how to share a store between processes.
Is it as simple as pointing both processes at the same data store file? I've experimented with this briefly. It appeared to work OK, but I'm worried I might run into problems with locking etc when it's really put under stress.
Finally
I'd really appreciate someone giving me pointers on what direction to go with this. Thanks.
This might be one of those situations in which you'll simply have to Try It And See™.
Insofar as I can remember, SQLite (which is the data store you'll most likely want to be using) has built in mechanisms for file locking and so on; so the integrity of the file is likely to be assured. If, on the other hand, you use the CoreData/XML approach, you might run into problems.
In other words; use the SQLite backing for your file, and you should likely be fine.
You can do exactly what you want, you probably want to use the SQLite store otherwise saving and committing every time you want to synch out data will be horrifically slow. You just need to use some sort of IPC doorbell between the apps so that you can inform one app it needs to recheck the persistent store on disk and merge in its data.
Apple documents using multiple persistent store corindators as a valid option in Multi-Threading with Core Data (in "General Guidelines", open 2). That happens to be discussing completely parallel CD stacks in the same process, but it is valid if they are in completely separate address spaces as well.
Nearly two years on, and I've just found a much better way of doing this.
The answer seems to lie with Sync Services. I didn't even realise it existed! There's an excellent post about this at:
http://www.timisted.net/blog/archive/core-data-and-sync-services/
I've not tried this with my app yet, but it seems like an excellent way of sharing a core data store between two processes or applications.
If I experience any performance issues, I'll update this answer accordingly, but this seems like the Apple recommended way of doing it.
You need to re-think your architecture. If you want a daemon to own the data store, then have your GUI app connect to the daemon. Trying to share the data store is a can of worms you don't want to open.