The only good reference that I can find on the internet is this whitepaper, which explains what database tiering is, but not how it works:
The concept behind database tiering is
the seamless co-existence of multiple
(legacy and new) database technologies
to best solve a business problem.
But, how does it implemented? How does it work?
Any links regarding this would also be helpful. Thanks.
I think the idea of that document is you to put "cheap" databases in front of the "expensive" databases to reduce costs.
For example. Let's assume you have an "expensive" db...something like Oracle, or DB2 or even MSSQL (more realistically it's probably more of an issue with a legacy DB system that is not supported much or you need specialized resources to maintain). A database engine that costs a lot to purchase and maintain (arguably these are not expensive when you take all factors into consideration. But let's use them for the example).
Now if you suddenly get famous and your server starts to get overloaded what do you do? Do you buy a bigger server and migrate all your data to that new server? That could be incredibly expensive.
With the tiering solution you put several "cheap" databases in front of you "expensive" database to take the brunt of the work. So your web servers (or app servers) talk to a bunch of MySQL servers, for example, instead of directly to the your expensive server. Then these MySQL servers handle the majority of the calls. For example, they could handle all read-only calls completely on their own and only need to pass write-calls back to the main database server. These MySQL servers are then kept in sync via standard replication practices.
Using methods like this you could in theory scale out your expensive server to dozens, if not hundreds, of "cheap" database servers and handle a much higher load.
Database tiering is just a specific style of tiering. There are also application tiering and service tiering. It's a form of scalability.
What exactly are you asking? This question is rather vague.
This is a PDF from a course at Ohio State. What it discusses is a bit over my head, but hopefully you might understand it better.
Related
I hvae django app that needs to be extremely fast, and it works good for now.
So my question is, is it better to put django app on one server and mysql on another server, or on one server both?
I ask because of communication between then.
I use digitalocean, and both are on one server.
It depends how well the application is written.
Poorly written django will generate a lot of queries so maybe it's beneficial to have it on the same server. Well written Django should leverage the database to do the heavy lifting, in which case its better to have it on a separate server, so the server can be tuned for a database. (In general having a separate database server is the way to go).
The best thing to do would be to add Django debug toolbar to your application and see if it is generating a lot of queries or not, and tune the application from there.
You have couple of options but let's stick to these two.
One server for everything
Good for setting up an application quickly, as it is the simplest setup possible, but it offers little in the way of scalability and component isolation.
There are a lot of pros, it's fast, simple to work with. It does not meet latency problems. From cons: you cannot horizontally scale.
Server for web application and server for database.
First of all, I would recommend to use Postgres, since the latest version (9.6) can now work on multiple cores, which makes it way faster than mysql.
It is good for setting up an application quickly, but keeps application and database from fighting over the same system resources.
From pros it does not fight over resources (RAM / CPU / I/O).
It may also increase security by removing database from DMZ.
From cons, it is harder to setup and when high-latency is going on, the queries might take longer to execute.
To sum up. I would use first option for small and medium applications which does not require a lot of requests.
I would consider moving DB to another server/servers, whenever the application hosts thousands of users per day.
Right now I'm developing the prototype of a web application that aggregates large number of text entries from a large number of users. This data must be frequently displayed back and often updated. At the moment I store the content inside a MySQL database and use NHibernate ORM layer to interact with the DB. I've got a table defined for users, roles, submissions, tags, notifications and etc. I like this solution because it works well and my code looks nice and sane, but I'm also worried about how MySQL will perform once the size of our database reaches a significant number. I feel that it may struggle performing join operations fast enough.
This has made me think about non-relational database system such as MongoDB, CouchDB, Cassandra or Hadoop. Unfortunately I have no experience with either. I've read some good reviews on MongoDB and it looks interesting. I'm happy to spend the time and learn if one turns out to be the way to go. I'd much appreciate any one offering points or issues to consider when going with none relational dbms?
The other answers here have focused mainly on the technical aspects, but I think there are important points to be made that focus on the startup company aspect of things:
Availabililty of talent. MySQL is very common and you will probably find it easier (and more importantly, cheaper) to find developers for it, compared to the more rarified database systems. This larger developer base will also mean more tutorials, a more active support community, etc.
Ease of development. Again, because MySQL is so common, you will find it is the db of choice for a great many systems / services. This common ground may make any external integration a little easier.
You are preparing for a situation that may never exist, and is manageable if it does. Very few businesses (nevermind startups) come close to MySQL's limits, and with all due respect (and I am just guessing here); the likelihood that your startup will ever hit the sort of data throughput to cripple a properly structured, well resourced MySQL db is almost zero.
Basically, don't spend your time ( == money) worrying about which db to use, as MySQL can handle a lot of data, is well proven and well supported.
Going back to the technical side of things... Something that will have a far greater impact on the speed of your app than choice of db, is how efficiently data can be cached. An effective cache can have dramatic effects on reducing db load and speeding up the general responsivness of an app. I would spend your time investigating caching solutions and making sure you are developing your app in such a way that it can make the best use of those solutions.
FYI, my caching solution of choice is memcached.
So far no one has mentioned PostgreSQL as alternative to MySQL on the relational side. Be aware that MySQL libs are pure GPL, not LGPL. That might force you to release your code if you link to them, although maybe someone with more legal experience could tell you better the implications. On the other side, linking to a MySQL library is not the same that just connecting to the server and issue commands, you can do that with closed source.
PostreSQL is usually the best free replacement of Oracle and the BSD license should be more business friendly.
Since you prefer a non relational database, consider that the transition will be more dramatic. If you ever need to customize your database, you should also consider the license type factor.
There are three things that really have a deep impact on which one is your best database choice and you do not mention:
The size of your data or if you need to store files within your database.
A huge number of reads and very few (even restricted) writes. In that case more than a database you need a directory such as LDAP
The importance of of data distribution and/or replication. Most relational databases can be more or less well replicated, but because of their concept/design do not handle data distribution as well... but will you handle as much data that does not fit into one server or have access rights that needs special separate/extra servers?
However most people will go for a non relational database just because they do not like learning SQL
What do you think is a significant amount of data? MySQL, and basically most relational database engines, can handle rather large amount of data, with proper indexes and sane database schema.
Why don't you try how MySQL behaves with bigger data amount in your setup? Make some scripts that generate realistic data to MySQL test database and and generate some load on the system and see if it is fast enough.
Only when it is not fast enough, first start considering optimizing the database and changing to different database engine.
Be careful with NHibernate, it is easy to make a solution that is nice and easy to code with, but has bad performance with large amount of data. For example whether to use lazy or eager fetching with associations should be carefully considered. I don't mean that you shouldn't use NHibernate, but make sure that you understand how NHibernate works, for example what "n + 1 selects" -problem means.
Measure, don't assume.
Relational databases and NoSQL databases can both scale enormously, if the application is written right in each case, and if the system it runs on is properly tuned.
So, if you have a use case for NoSQL, code to it. Or, if you're more comfortable with relational, code to that. Then, measure how well it performs and how it scales, and if it's OK, go with it, if not, analyse why.
Only once you understand your performance problem should you go searching for exotic technology, unless you're comfortable with that technology or want to try it for some other reason.
I'd suggest you try out each db and pick the one that makes it easiest to develop your application. Go to http://try.mongodb.org to try MongoDB with a simple tutorial. Don't worry as much about speed since at the beginning developer time is more valuable than the CPU time.
I know that many MongoDB users have been able to ditch their ORM and their caching layer. Mongo's data model is much closer to the objects you work with than relational tables, so you can usually just directly store your objects as-is, even if they contain lists of nested objects, such as a blog post with comments. Also, because mongo is fast enough for most sites as-is, you can avoid dealing the complexities of caching and generally deliver a more real-time site. For example, Wordnik.com reported 250,000 reads/sec and 100,000 inserts/sec with a 1.2TB / 5 billion object DB.
There are a few ways to connect to MongoDB from .Net, but I don't have enough experience with that platform to know which is best:
Norm: http://wiki.github.com/atheken/NoRM/
MongoDB-CSharp: http://github.com/samus/mongodb-csharp
Simple-MongoDB: http://code.google.com/p/simple-mongodb/
Disclaimer: I work for 10gen on MongoDB so I am a bit biased.
I'm not sure, if it fits exactly stackoverflow, however as i'm seeking for some code rather than a tool, i think it does.
I'm looking for a way of how to replicate / synchronize different database systems -- in this case: mysql and mongodb. We are running both for different purpose. We started with a mysql database and added mongodb later on for special applications. There's data we would like to have in both databases, where we want to have constraints in mysql respectivly dbrefs in mongodb. For example: We need a user-record in mysql, but also in mongodb for references between tables respectivly objects. At the moment we have a cronjob, which dumps the mysql data and imports it in mongodb. However though it works quite well, that's not the solution we would like to have.
I think for the moment a one-way replication would be enough -- mysql->mongodb, the important part is, that the replication works in "realtime", much like a mysql master->slave replication works.
Are there already any solutions for this problem or ideas anyone of how to achieve this?
Thanks!
SymmetricDS is open source, Java-based, web-enabled, database independent, data synchronization/replication software that might do the trick with a few tweaks. It has an extension point called IDataLoaderFilter which you could use to implement a MongodbDataLoader.
This would help with one way database replication. It might be a little more difficult to synchronized from MongoDb -> relational database, but the SymmetricDS team would be very helpful in trying to find the solution.
What you're looking for is called EAI (Enterprise application integration). There are a lot of commercial tools around but under the provided link, you'll also find a couple OSS solutions. The basis of EAI is that you have data sources and data sinks. The EAI framework offers tools to build custom pumps between the two.
I suggest to either use a DB trigger to start the synchronization or send a trigger signal in your applications. Note that there is no key-hole solution since synchronization can become arbitrarily complex (for example, how do you make sure that all rows are copied?).
As far as I see you need to develop some sort of "Control program" that has the drivers for each DBMS and run it as a daemon. The daemon should have a trigger or a very small recheck interval to keep the DBs synchronized
Technically, you could set up a process which parses the binary log of the MySQL server and replicate the relevant sql queries. I've never done such a thing with a a different database as a slave, but maybe it is worth a shot?
I am developing a Rails application that will access a lot of RSS feeds or crawl sites for data (mostly news). It will be something like Google News but with a different approach, so I'll store a lot of news (or news summaries), classify them in different categories and use ranking and recommendation techniques.
Should I go with MySQL?
Is it worthwhile using IBM DB2
purexml to store the doucuments?
Also Ruby search implementations
(Ferret, Ultrasphinx and others) are
not needed If I choose DB2. Is that correct?
What are the advantages of
PostreSQL in this?
Does it makes sense to use Couch DB in
this scenario?
I'd like to choose the best option but without over-complicating the solution. So I discarded the idea to use two different storage solutions (one for the news documents and other for the rest of the data). I'm also considering only "free" options, so I didn't look at Oracle or MS SQL Server.
purexml is heavier than SQL, so you pay more for your roundtrip between webserver and DB. If you plan to have lots of users, I'd avoid it, your better off letting your webserver cache the requests, thus avoiding creating xml(rss) everytime, if that is what you are thinking about.
I'd go with MySQL because its really good at serving and its totally free, well PostgreSQL is too, but haven't used it so I can't say.
CouchDB could make sense, but not if you plan on doing OLAP (Offline Analysis) of your data, a normal RDBMS will be better at it.
Admitting firstly that I generally don't like mysql, I will say that there has been writing on this topic regarding postgres:
http://oldmoe.blogspot.com/2008/08/101-reasons-why-postgresql-is-better.html
This is always my choice when I need a pure relational database. I don't know whether a document database would be more appropriate for your application without knowing more about it. It does sound like it's something you should at least investigate.
MySQL is probably one of the best options out there; light, easy to install and maintain, multiplatform and free. On top of that there are some good free client tools.
Something to think about; because of the nature of your system you will probably have some tables that will grow quite a lot very quickly so you might want to think about performance.
Thus, MySQL supports vertical partitioning but only from V 5.1.
It sounds to me the application you will build can easily become a large-scale web app. I would suggest PostgreSQL, for it has been known for its reliability.
You can check out the following link -- Bob Ippolito from MochiMedia tells us why they ditched MySQL for PostgreSQL. Although the posts are more than 3 years old, the issues MySQL 5.1 has recently tend to prove that they are still relevant.
http://bob.pythonmac.org/archives/category/sql/mysql/
MySQL is good in production. I haven't used PostgreSQL for rails, but it's a good solution as well.
In the dev and test environments I'd start out with SQLite (default), and perhaps migrate to your target DB in the test environment as you move closer to completion.
I need to set up a MySQL environment that will support adding many unique databases over time (thousands, actually).
I assume that at some point I will need to start adding MySQL servers, and would like my environment to be prepared for the case beforehand, to make the transition to a 2nd, 3rd, 100th server easy.
And just to make it interesting, It would be very convenient if the solution was modeled so the application that queries the databases sends all the queries to a single address and receives a result. It should be unaware of the number and location of the servers. The database name is unique and can be used to figure out which server holds the database.
I've done some research, and MySQL Proxy pops out as the main candidate, but I haven't been able to find anything specific about making it perform as described above.
Anyone?
Great question. I know of several companies that have done this (Facebook jumps out as the biggest). None are happy, but alternatives kind of suck, too.
More things for you to consider -- what happens when some of these databases or servers fail? What happens when you need to do a cross-database query (and you will, even if you don't think so right now).
Here's the FriendFeed solution: http://bret.appspot.com/entry/how-friendfeed-uses-mysql
It's a bit "back-asswards" since they are basically using MySQL as a glorified key-value store. I am not sure why they don't just cut out the middleman and use something like BerkeleyDB for storing their objects. Connection management, maybe? Seems like the MySQL overhead would be too high a price to pay for something that could be added pretty easily (famous last words).
What you are really looking for (I think) is a distributed share-nothing database. Several have been built on top of open-source technologies like MySQL and PostgreSQL, but none are available for free. If you are in the buying mood, check out these companies: Greenplum, AsterData, Netezza, Vertica.
There is also a large number of various distributed key-value storage solutions out there. For lack of a better reference, here's a starting point: http://www.metabrew.com/article/anti-rdbms-a-list-of-distributed-key-value-stores/ .
Your problem sounds similar to one we faced - that you are acting as a white-label, and that each client needs to have their own separate database. Assuming this concept parallels yours, what we did was leverage a "master" database that stored the hostname and database name for the client (which could be cached in the application tier). The server the client was accessing could then dynamically shift its datasource to the required database. This allowed us to scale up to thousands of client databases, scattered across servers.