We are using Amazon RDS Multi-AZ mysql database and our web application uses IIS 8.5 and uses .net. Whenever there is a a failover with the mysql database, we have to manually "restart" the connection, so it refreshes to the new IP address of the mysql server. I'm sure it may eventually restart on it's own. Does anyone know the best approach to this issue? Was thinking about using "ConnectionLifeTime=...", but not sure what affect it would have on performance; or if the site was in the middle of a long query that happened to go over the time frame set in connectionlifetime, if it would drop/reset the connection in the middle of the query or if it would wait for the query to finish?
Related
I have a product built with laravel, with multi-tenancy.
Deployed on EC2 instance and using AWS RDS as the database server.
I am currently having around 100 databases on the production.
Laravel's hyn tenancy module is handling the connections.
Now, the problem is for each tenant after some idle time, the first request takes too long. around 15-20 seconds. and after that, it works smoothly.
In the test environment, we are not using RDS but a local MySQL instance. and the problem does not occur in the test environment. the only difference between test and production is the AWS RDS.
I have looked into max connections, query cache, and so on... but no luck so far.
Any suggestions?
The solution will depend on what kind of RDS you have.
I assume it's serverless (more common). In that case, there's a setting for min and max for ACU. It will (I believe) go down to zero by default if the DB is not accessed in a while. Check that and see if it is properly set.
If you have a Provisioned DB, then it's more complex. It will start caching things once queries are executed but until a particular query is run, you will be waiting for the DB to "wake up" and run a full query.
Check this page for relevant info.
I have an RDS instance hosting a mySQL database. Instance size is db.t2.micro
I also have an ExpressJS backend connecting to the mySQL RDS instance via a connection pool:
Additionally i have a mobile app, the client, feeding off the ExpressJS API.
The issue i'm facing is, either via the mobile app or via Postman, there are times where i get a 'Too many connections' error and therefore several requests fail:
On the RDS instance. On current activity i sometimes get 65 connections, showing it's reaching the limit. What i need clarity on is:
When 200 mobile app instances connect to the API, to the RDS instance, does it register as 200 connections or 1 connection from ExpressJS?
Is it normal to be reaching the RDS instance 65 connection limit?
Is this just a matter of me using db.t2.micro instance size which is not recommended for prod? Will upgrading the instance size resolve this issue?
Is there something i'm doing wrong with my requests?
Thank you and your feedback is appreciated.
If your app creates a connection pool of 100, that's the number of database connections it will try to open. It must be lower than your MySQL connection limit.
Typically connection pools open all the connections for the pool, so they are ready when a client calls the http API. The connections might normally be running no SQL queries, if there are not many clients using the API at a given moment. The database connections are nevertheless connected.
Sort of like when you ssh to a remote linux server but you just sit there at a shell prompt for a while before running any command. You're still connected.
You asked if a db.t2.micro instance was not recommended for production. Yes, I would agree with that. It's tempting to use the smallest instance possible to save money, but a db.t2.micro is too small for anything but light testing, in my opinion.
In fact, I would not use any t2 instance for production, regardless of size. The t2 type uses "burstable" performance. This means it can provide only brief periods of good performance. Once the instance depletes its performance credits, they recharge slowly, and while they recharge, the performance of that instance is very low. This is okay for testing, but not for production, if you expect to provide consistent performance at any time.
I am currently connecting to an RDS instance (MariaDB) without an issue from within the configured VPC.
I am also connecting to the RDS instance from local clients (external to the VPC) with no connectivity issues but have serious issues with SQL execution speeds. It can take up to 20 times longer to execute a query remotely vs locally (an EC2 on same VPC).
I have the Security Group for the RDS instance setup to allow the external IPs as incoming rules and the RDS instance is listening on a non-default port (not 3306).
I cannot think of anything I should be doing differently on the network side of things and I have set skip-name-resolve=1, yet the speed is ridiculous.
It has no preference in terms of what the SQL query may be (SELECT, UPDATE, DELETE), they all execute slow.
Server RDS is MariaDb 10.1.19 on a db.t2.medium instance.
Client connection is via MySQL .NET Connector and connection string:
Server=<ip>;Port=<port>;Database=<dbname>;User ID=<dbuser>;Pooling=true;CharSet=utf8;Password=<dbpass>
Client has no connectivity or speed issues when DB in not an RDS (local MySQL).
I have seen various network related issues popping up now and then (connection stream dropped) but nothing serious apart from that, just very slow.
Any pointers on how to at least determine where the problem is?
The scenario I am trying to achieve (with acceptable speeds) is described here (albeit vague in their instructions):
http://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonRDS/latest/UserGuide/USER_VPC.Scenarios.html#USER_VPC.Scenario4
I've had a Rails application running in production for the past 6 months, with weekly deployments, without any issue.
Now, I've been having a recurring issue for about 3 weeks and it seems to get worst every week.
When my app boots and reaches the point where it's trying to connect to the DB, I get this error :
Can't connect to MySQL server on '***.amazonaws.com' (110) (Mysql2::Error)
AFAIK, this error tells me that I've reached MySQL's max connections limit.
From the configs, I should be able to open 296 connections. My app is set to run 7 instances with each a database connection pool of 5, so it can't really exceed 70 connections when deploying a new instance.
I've never seen the connection count go above 20 in either the AWS RDS Console or the SHOW PROCESSLIST command.
I don't think it has anything to do with either Rails or my application server (Puma), since I can't connect through the MySQL Command-Line Tool when the issue occurs.
Has anyone had a similar issue with MySQL on RDS or MySQL itself?
The database pool isn't per application, it's per process. If it's threading/multi process per instance it could be using more than that. Have you tried restarting mysql? It sounds like you have some hanging connections for whatever reason.
I've been getting these issues recently. Could it be related to the pending-restart change of parameter group on my RDS Instance? I sure hope not. As I understand a pending change should have no effect on the current performance.
I have a MySQL database running on our server at this location.
However, the internet connection at this location is slow (Especially when several users are connected remotely).
We also have a remote web server on a very fast internet connection.
Can I run another MySQL server on the remote server and still be able to run queries and updates on it?
I want to have two servers because
- Users at this location can connect via lan (fast)
- Users working remotely can connect to synced remote server (fast)
Is this possible? From what I understand replication does not work this way. What is replication used for then? Backups?
Thanks for your help!
[Edit]
After doing some more reading, I am a little worried about setting up multi-master replication due to the fact that I had not considered multi-master when designing the database and conflicts could be an issue.
The good news though is that most time consuming operations are queries not updates.
And, I found out that there is a driver that handles master-slave connections.
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.1/en/connector-j-reference-replication-connection.html
That way writes will be sent to the master and reads can come from the faster connection.
Has anyone tried doing this before? My one concern is that if I update to the master, then run a query expecting to see the update on the slave, will it be there right away? Or will the slow connection make this solution just as slow as using the master for both read and write?
What you're asking, I believe, is called Multi-Master Replication, by which both servers serve as replication masters to each other. Changes on either server become replicated back to the other as soon as possible. MySQL can be configured to do it, however I'm not sure how the differences in speed would affect your performance and data integrity.
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.1/en/mysql-cluster-replication-multi-master.html