We are running a Java PoS (Point of Sale) application at various shops, with a MySql backend. I want to keep the databases in the shops synchronised with a database on a host server.
When some changes happen in a shop, they should get updated on the host server. How do I achieve this?
Replication is not very hard to create.
Here's some good tutorials:
http://www.ghacks.net/2009/04/09/set-up-mysql-database-replication/
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.5/en/replication-howto.html
http://www.lassosoft.com/Beginners-Guide-to-MySQL-Replication
Here some simple rules you will have to keep in mind (there's more of course but that is the main concept):
Setup 1 server (master) for writing data.
Setup 1 or more servers (slaves) for reading data.
This way, you will avoid errors.
For example:
If your script insert into the same tables on both master and slave, you will have duplicate primary key conflict.
You can view the "slave" as a "backup" server which hold the same information as the master but cannot add data directly, only follow what the master server instructions.
NOTE: Of course you can read from the master and you can write to the slave but make sure you don't write to the same tables (master to slave and slave to master).
I would recommend to monitor your servers to make sure everything is fine.
Let me know if you need additional help
three different approaches:
Classic client/server approach: don't put any database in the shops; simply have the applications access your server. Of course it's better if you set a VPN, but simply wrapping the connection in SSL or ssh is reasonable. Pro: it's the way databases were originally thought. Con: if you have high latency, complex operations could get slow, you might have to use stored procedures to reduce the number of round trips.
replicated master/master: as #Book Of Zeus suggested. Cons: somewhat more complex to setup (especially if you have several shops), breaking in any shop machine could potentially compromise the whole system. Pros: better responsivity as read operations are totally local and write operations are propagated asynchronously.
offline operations + sync step: do all work locally and from time to time (might be once an hour, daily, weekly, whatever) write a summary with all new/modified records from the last sync operation and send to the server. Pros: can work without network, fast, easy to check (if the summary is readable). Cons: you don't have real-time information.
SymmetricDS is the answer. It supports multiple subscribers with one direction or bi-directional asynchronous data replication. It uses web and database technologies to replicate tables between relational databases, in near real time if desired.
Comprehensive and robust Java API to suit your needs.
Have a look at Schema and Data Comparison tools in dbForge Studio for MySQL. These tool will help you to compare, to see the differences, generate a synchronization script and synchronize two databases.
Related
I have the app a MySQL DB is a slave for other remote Master DB. And i use memcache to do caching of some DB data.
My slave DB can be updated if there are updates in a Master DB. So in my application i want to know when my local (slave) DB is updated to invalidate related cached data and display fresh data i got from master.
Is there any way to run some program when slave mysql DB is updated ? i would then filter q query and understand if i need to clean a cache or not.
Thanks
First of all you are looking for solution similar to what Facebook did in their db architecture (As I remember they patched MySQL for this).
You can build your own solution based on one of these techniques:
Parse replication log on slave side, remove cache entry when you see update of data in the log
Load UDF (user defined function) for memcached, attach trigger on replica side (it will call UDF remove function) to interested tables inside MySQL.
Please note that this configuration is complicated during the support and maintenance. If you can sacrifice stale data in the cache maybe small ttl will help you.
As Kirugan says, it's as simple as writing your own SQL parser, and ensuring that you also provide an indexed lookup keyed to the underlying data for anything you insert into the cache, then cross reference the datasets for any DML you apply to the database. Of course, this will be a lot simpler if you create a simplified, abstract syntax to represent the DML, but thereby losing the flexibilty of SQL and of course, having to re-implement any legacy code using your new syntax. Apart from fixing the existing code, it should only take a year or two to get this working right. Basing your syntax on MySQL's handler API rather than SQL will probably save a lot of pain later in the project.
Of course, if you need full cache consistency then you need to ensure that a logical transaction now spans all the relevant datacentres which will have something of an adverse impact on your performance (certainly much slower than just referencing the master directly).
For a company like facebook, with hundreds of thousands of servers and terrabytes of data (and no requirement for cache consistency) such an approach to solving the problem leads to massive savings. If you only have 2 servers, a better solution would be to switch to multi-master replication, possibly add another database node, optimize the storage (e.g. switching to ssds / adding fast bcache) make sure you have session affinity to the dbms from the aplication (but not stcky sessions) and spend some time tuning your dbms, particularly its cache performance.
I've got a very specific use case and because I'm not too familiar with database replication, I am open to suggestions and ideas about how to accomplish the following in the best possible way:
A web application + database is running on a remote server. Let's call this set-up R for remote.
Now suppose there are 3 separate geographical locations which need read+write access to the database. I will call these locations L1, L2 and L3.
The main problem: the remote server might be unavailable or the internet connection of one of the locations might not always work, rendering the remote application unavailable; but we want the application to work as a high availability solution (on-site) even when the remote server is down or when there is an internet connection problem.
Partial solution: So I was thinking about giving each geographical location its own server with a local copy of the web application. The web application itself can get updated when needed from a version control system automatically (for example using git hooks).
So far so good... (at least I believe so?)
But what about our data? The really tricky part seems to be the database replication. Let's assume no DNS or IP failover and assume that the user first tries to access the remote server directly and if this does not work, the user can still use the local server on-site instead. This all happens inside a web browser (or similar client).
One possible (but unsatisfactory) solution would be to use master-slave replication from R (master) to L1, L2 and L3 (slaves). When doing this asynchronously this should be quite fast? I think this is a viable solution for temporary local read-only database access when the main server is broken or can't be accessed.
But... what about read-write support? I suppose we would need multi-master replication in this case, but I am afraid that synchronous replication using something like (for example) MySQL Cluster or Galera would slow things down, especially since L1, L2 and L3 are on lower bandwidth connections. And they are connected through WAN. (Also, L1, L2 or L3 might not always be online.)
The real question: How would you tackle this specific use case? At the moment I am leaning towards multi-master replication if it doesn't slow down things too much. The application itself will mainly be used by employees on-site but by some external people over WAN as well. Would multi-master replication work well? What if for example L1 is down for 24 hours and suddenly comes back on-line? What if R can't be accessed?
EXTRA: not my main question, but I also need the synchronized data to be sent securely over SSL, if possible, please take this into account for your answer.
Perhaps I am still forgetting some necessary details; if so, please respond with some feedback and I will try to update my question accordingly.
Please note that I haven't decided on a database yet and the database schema will be developed from scratch, so ideas using other databases or database engines are welcome as well. (At the moment I have most experience with MySQL and PostgreSQL)
As you are still undecided, I would strongly recommand you to have a look at MS-SQL merge replication. It is strong, highly reliable, replicates through LAN and HTTPS (so called web replication), and not that expensive.
Terminology differs from the mySql Master\Slave idea. We are here talking about one publisher, and multiple subscribers. All changes done at subscriber's level are collected and sent to the publisher, then redistributed to all subscribers (with, if needed, fancy options like 'filtered subscriptions').
Standard architecture will then be:
a publisher, somewhere on a server, which collects and redistributes changes between subscribers. Publisher might not be accessed by end users.
other database subscribers servers, either for local or web access, replicating with the publisher. Subscribers are accessed by end users.
We have been using this architecture for years, including:
one subscriber for internet access
one subscriber for intranet access
tens of subscribers for local access: some subscribers are on our constructions projects, somewhere in the desert ....
Such an architecture is not available "from the shelf" with MySQL. I guess it could be built, but it would then certainly be a lot more expensive than just buying the corresponding MS-SQL licenses. Do not forget that the free SQLEXPRESS version of MS-SQL can be a subscriber.
Be careful: If you are planning to go through such a configuration, I would (really) strongly advise you to have all primary keys set to uniqueIdentifier data type, and randomly generated. This will avoid the typical replication pitfall, where PK's are set to int with automatic increment, and where independant servers generate identical primary keys between two replications (MS-SQL proposes a tool to avoid such problems, where you can allocate PK ranges per server, but this solution is a real PITA ...).
Two machines, each running mysql, each synchronized to the other peer-to-peer. I do not want a master db replicated. Rather, I want two users to be able to work on the data offline (each running a mysql server on his machine) and then when reconnected synchronize to each other. Any way to do this with mysql? Any other database I should be looking at to accomplish this better than mysql?
Two-way replication is provided by various database systems (e.g. SQLServer, Sybase etc.) but there are always problems with such a set up.
For example, if the same row is updated at the same time on the two databases, which update wins?
If your aim is to provide a highly-available MySQL database, then there are better options than using replication. MySQL has a clustering solution (though I've not had much success with it) or you can use things like DRBD and heartbeat to provide automatic failover with no loss of data.
If you mean synchronous writing back and forth, this would cause serious data consistency issues. I think you may be referring to MySQL replication, wherein a master server sends its updates to one or more slave database servers, which can be queried.
As for "Other Database Options" SQLServer supports a fairly advanced "replication" process for synchronizing the data between two or more db's. Looks like MySql has something like this as well though.
We have an ASP.NET web application hosted by a web farm of many instances using SQL Server 2008 in which we do aggregation and pre-processing of data from multiple sources into a format optimised for fast end user query performance (producing 5-10 million rows in some tables). The aggregation and optimisation is done by a service on a back end server which we then want to distribute to multiple read only front end copies used by the web application instances to facilitate maximum scalability.
My question is about the best way to get this data from a back end database out to the read only front end copies in such a way that does not kill their performance during the process. The front end web application instances will be under constant high load and need to have good responsiveness at all times.
The backend database is constantly being updated so I suspect that transactional replication will not be the best approach, as the constant stream of updates to the copies will hurt their performance.
Staleness of data is not a huge issue so snapshot replication might be the way to go, but this will result in poor performance during the periods of replication.
Doing a drop and bulk insert will result in periods with no data for user queries.
I don't really want to get into writing a complex cluster approach where we drop copies out of the cluster during updating - is there something along these lines that we can do without too much effort, or is there a better alternative?
There is actually a technology built into SQL Server 2005 (and 2008) that is designed to address this kind of issues. Service Broker (I'll refer further as SSB). The problem is that it has a very steep learning curve.
I know MySpace went public how uses SSB to manage their park of SQL Servers: MySpace Uses SQL Server Service Broker to Protect Integrity of 1 Petabyte of Data. I know of several more (major) sites that use similar patterns but unfortunately they have not gone public so I cannot refer names. I was personally involved with some projects around this technology (I am a former member of the SQL Server team).
Now bear in mind that SSB is not a dedicate data transfer technology like Replication. As such you will not find anyhting similar to the publishing wizards and simple deployment options of Replication (check a table and it gets transferred). SSB is a reliable messaging technology and as such its primitives stop at the level of message exchange, you would have to write the code that leverages the data change capture, packs it as messages and also the unpacking of message into relational tables at destination.
Why still some companies preffer SSB over Replication at a task like you describe is because SSB has a far better story when it comes to reliability and scalability. I know of projects that exchange data between 1500+ sites, far beyond the capabilities of Replication. SSB is also abstracted from the physical topology: you can move databases, rename machines, rebuild servers all without changing the application. Because data flow occurs over logical routes the application can addapt on-the-fly to new topologies. SSB is also resilient to long periods of disocnnect and downtime, being capable of resuming the data flow after hours, days and even months of disconnect. High troughput achieved by engine integration (SSB is part of the SQL engine itself, is not a collection of sattelite applications and processes like Replication) means that the backlog of changes can be processes on reasonable times (I know of sites that are going through half a million transactions per minute). SSB applications typically rely on internal Activation to process the incomming data. SSB also has some unique features like built-in load balancing (via routes) with sticky session semantics, support for deadlock free application specific correlated processing, priority data delivery, specific support for database mirroring, certificate based authentication for cross domain operations, built-in persisted timers and many more.
This is not a specific answer 'how to move data from table T on server A to server B'. Is more a generic technology on how to 'exhange data between server A and server B'.
I've never had to deal with this scenario before but did come up with a possible solution for this. Basically, it would require a change in your main database structure. Instead of storing the data, you would keep records of modifications of this data. Thus, if a record is added, you store "Table X, inserted new record with these values: ..." With modifications, just store the table, field and changed value. With deletions, just store which record is deleted. Every modification will be stored with a timestamp.
Your client systems would keep their local copies of the database and will regularly ask for all database modifications after a certain date/time. You then execute those modifications on the local database and it will be up-to-date again.
And the back-end? Well, it would just keep a list of modifications and perhaps a table with the base data. Keeping just the modifications also means you're keeping track of history, allowing you to ask the system what it looked like a year ago.
How well this would perform depends on the number of modifications on the back-end database. But if you request the changes every 15 minutes, it shouldn't be that much data every time.
But again, I never had the chance to work this out in a real application so it's still a theoretic principle for me. It seems fast but a lot of work will be required.
Option 1: Write an app to transfer the data using row level transactions. It might take longer but would result in no interruption of the site using the data because the rows are there before and after the read occurs, just with new data. This processing would happen on a separate server to minimize load.
In sql server 2008 you can set READ_COMMITTED_SNAPSHOT to ON to ensure that the row being updated is not causing blocking.
But basically all this app does is read the new data as it is available out from one database and into the other.
Option 2: Move the data (tables or entire database) from the aggregation server to the front-end server. Automate this if possible. Then switch your web application to point to the new database or tables for future requests. This works but requires control over the web app, which you may not have.
Option 3: If you were talking about a single table (or this could work with many) what you can do is a view swap. So you write your code against a sql view which points to table A. You do you work on Table B and when it's ready, you update the view to point to Table B. You can even write a function that determines the active table and automate the whole swap thing.
Option 4: You might be able to use something like byte-level replication of the server. That sounds scary though. Which is basically copying the server from point A to point B exactly down to the very bytes. It's mostly used in DR situations which this sounds like it could be a kinda/sorta DR situation, but not really.
Option 5: Give up and learn how to sell insurance. :)
I have a fairly good feel for what MySQL replication can do. I'm wondering what other databases support replication, and how they compare to MySQL and others?
Some questions I would have are:
Is replication built in, or an add-on/plugin?
How does the replication work (high-level)? MySQL provides statement-based replication (and row-based replication in 5.1). I'm interested in how other databases compare. What gets shipped over the wire? How do changes get applied to the replicas?
Is it easy to check consistency between master and slaves?
How easy is it to get a failed replica back in sync with the master?
Performance? One thing I hate about MySQL replication is that it's single-threaded, and replicas often have trouble keeping up, since the master can be running many updates in parallel, but the replicas have to run them serially. Are there any gotchas like this in other databases?
Any other interesting features...
MySQL's replication is weak inasmuch as one needs to sacrifice other functionality to get full master/master support (due to the restriction on supported backends).
PostgreSQL's replication is weak inasmuch as only master/standby is supported built-in (using log shipping); more powerful solutions (such as Slony or Londiste) require add-on functionality. Archive log segments are shipped over the wire, which are the same records used to make sure that a standalone database is in working, consistent state on unclean startup. This is what I'm using presently, and we have resynchronization (and setup, and other functionality) fully automated. None of these approaches are fully synchronous. More complete support will be built in as of PostgreSQL 8.5. Log shipping does not allow databases to come out of synchronization, so there is no need for processes to test the synchronized status; bringing the two databases back into sync involves setting the backup flag on the master, rsyncing to the slave (with the database still runnning; this is safe), and unsetting the backup flag (and restarting the slave process) with the archive logs generated during the backup process available; my shop has this process (like all other administration tasks) automated. Performance is a nonissue, since the master has to replay the log segments internally anyhow in addition to doing other work; thus, the slaves will always be under less load than the master.
Oracle's RAC (which isn't properly replication, as there's only one storage backend -- but you have multiple frontends sharing the load, and can build redundancy into that shared storage backend itself, so it's worthy of mention here) is a multi-master approach far more comprehensive than other solutions, but is extremely expensive. Database contents aren't "shipped over the wire"; instead, they're stored to the shared backend, which all the systems involved can access. Because there is only one backend, the systems cannot come out of sync.
Continuent offers a third-party solution which does fully synchronous statement-level replication with support for all three of the above databases; however, the commercially supported version of their product isn't particularly cheap (though vastly less expensive. Last time I administered it, Continuent's solution required manual intervention for bringing a cluster back into sync.
I have some experience with MS-SQL 2005 (publisher) and SQLEXPRESS (subscribers) with overseas merge replication. Here are my comments:
1 - Is replication built in, or an add-on/plugin?
Built in
2 - How does the replication work
(high-level)?
Different ways to replicate, from snapshot (giving static data at the subscriber level) to transactional replication (each INSERT/DELETE/UPDATE instruction is executed on all servers). Merge replication replicate only final changes (successives UPDATES on the same record will be made at once during replication).
3 - Is it easy to check consistency between master and slaves?
Something I have never done ...
4 - How easy is it to get a failed replica back in sync with the master?
The basic resynch process is just a double-click one .... But if you have 4Go of data to reinitialize over a 64 Kb connection, it will be a long process unless you customize it.
5 - Performance?
Well ... You will of course have a bottleneck somewhere, being your connection performance, volume of data, or finally your server performance. In my configuration, users only write to subscribers, which all replicate with the main database = publisher. This server is then never sollicited by final users, and its CPU is strictly dedicated to data replication (to multiple servers) and backup. Subscribers are dedicated to clients and one replication (to publisher), which gives a very interesting result in terms of data availability for final users. Replications between publisher and subscribers can be launched together.
6 - Any other interesting features...
It is possible, with some anticipation, to keep on developping the database without even stopping the replication process....tables (in an indirect way), fields and rules can be added and replicated to your subscribers.
Configurations with a main publisher and multiple suscribers can be VERY cheap (when compared to some others...), as you can use the free SQLEXPRESS on the suscriber's side, even when running merge or transactional replications
Try Sybase SQL Anywhere
Just adding to the options with SQL Server (especially SQL 2008, which has Change Tracking features now). Something to consider is the Sync Framework from Microsoft. There's a few options there, from the basic hub-and-spoke architecture which is great if you have a single central server and sometimes-connected clients, right through to peer-to-peer sync which gives you the ability to do much more advanced syncing with multiple 'master' databases.
The reason you might want to consider this instead of traditional replication is that you have a lot more control from code, for example you can get events during the sync progress for Update/Update, Update/Delete, Delete/Update, Insert/Insert conflicts and decide how to resolve them based on business logic, and if needed store the loser of the conflict's data somewhere for manual or automatic processing. Have a look at this guide to help you decide what's possible with the different methods of replication and/or sync.
For the keen programmers the Sync Framework is open enough that you can have the clients connect via WCF to your WCF Service which can abstract any back-end data store (I hear some people are experimenting using Oracle as the back-end).
My team has just gone release with a large project that involves multiple SQL Express databases syncing sub-sets of data from a central SQL Server database via WAN and Internet (slow dial-up connection in some cases) with great success.
MS SQL 2005 Standard Edition and above have excellent replication capabilities and tools. Take a look at:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms151198(SQL.90).aspx
It's pretty capable. You can even use SQL Server Express as a readonly subscriber.
There are a lot of different things which databases CALL replication. Not all of them actually involve replication, and those which do work in vastly different ways. Some databases support several different types.
MySQL supports asynchronous replication, which is very good for some things. However, there are weaknesses. Statement-based replication is not the same as what most (any?) other databases do, and doesn't always result in the expected behaviour. Row-based replication is only supported by a non production-ready version (but is more consistent with how other databases do it).
Each database has its own take on replication, some involve other tools plugging in.
A bit off-topic but you might want to check Maatkit for tools to help with MySQL replication.
All the main commercial databases have decent replication - but some are more decent than others. IBM Informix Dynamic Server (version 11 and later) is particularly good. It actually has two systems - one for high availability (HDR - high-availability data replication) and the other for distributing data (ER - enterprise replication). And the the Mach 11 features (RSS - remote standalone secondary, and SDS - shared disk secondary) are excellent too, doubly so in 11.50 where you can write to either the primary or secondary of an HDR pair.
(Full disclosure: I work on Informix softare.)
I haven't tried it myself, but you might also want to look into OpenBaseSQL, which seems to have some simple to use replication built-in.
Another way to go is to run in a virtualized environment. I thought the data in this blog article was interesting
http://chucksblog.typepad.com/chucks_blog/2008/09/enterprise-apps.html
It's from an EMC executive, so obviously, it's not independent, but the experiment should be reproducible
Here's the data specific for Oracle
http://oraclestorageguy.typepad.com/oraclestorageguy/2008/09/to-rac-or-not-to-rac-reprise.html
Edit: If you run virtualized, then there are ways to make anything replicate
http://chucksblog.typepad.com/chucks_blog/2008/05/vmwares-srm-cha.html