First world problems: We've got a production system that is growing rapidly, and we are aiming to grow our user base even more. At peak times our DB is flatlining at 100% CPU, which I take as an indication that it's pretty much stretched to the limit. Being an AWS instance, we could always throw some more hardware at it, but long term, it seems we will need to implement sharding.
I've Googled all over and found lots of explanations of what sharding is, why it is a good idea under certain circumstances, what design considerations, etc... but not a word on the practicality of how to do it.
What are the practical steps to shard a database? How do you redirect queries to the appropriate shard? And how do you run reports that require data from all shards?
The first thing you'll want to decide is whether or not you want to take on the complexity of routing queries in your application. If you decide to roll your own implementation, there are a number of complexities that you'll need to deal with over time.
You'll need a scheme to distribute data and queries evenly across the cluster. You'll need to ensure that this scheme is forward-compatible with a larger cluster, as if your data is already big enough to require a sharded architecture, it's likely that you'll need to add more servers.
The problem with sharding schemes is that they force you to make tradeoffs that you wouldn't have to make with a single-server database. For example, if you are sharding by user_id, any query which spans multiple users will need to be sent to all servers (or a subset of servers) and the results must be accumulated in your client application. This is especially complex if you are using aggregate queries that rely on the ordering of the data, such as MAX(), or any histogram computation.
All of this complexity isn't meant to scare you, but it's something you'll need to pay attention to. There are tools out there that can help you (disclosure: my company makes a tool called dbShards) but you can definitely put together your own solution, especially if your application is mature and the query patterns are quite predictable.
I know that similar questions were asked in the subject, but I still haven't seen anyone that completely contained all my requests.
I would start by saying that I only have experience in RDBMS's so I'm sorry if I get anything regarding NoSQL wrong.
I'm creating a database that would hold a large amount of audit logs (about 1TB).
I'm using it for:
Fast data writing (a massive amount of audit logs is written all the time)
Search - search over the audit data (search actions performed by a certain user, at a certain time or a certain action... the database should support searching any of the 'columns' very quickly)
Analytics & Reporting - Generate daily, weekly, monthly reports of the data (They are predefined at the moment.. if they are more dynamic, does it affect the solution I should choose?)
Reliability (support for fail-over or any similar feature), Scalability (If I grow above 1TB to 2TB, 10TB or 100TB - does any of the solutions can't support this amount of data?) and of course Performance (in the use cases I specified) are very important to me.
I know RDBMS and that would be my easy way of starting, but I'm really concerned that after a while, the DB would simply not keep up with the pace.
My question is should I pick an RDBMS or NoSQL solution and why? If a NoSQL solution, since they are so different, which of them do you think fits my needs?
Generally there isn't a right or wrong answer here.
Fast data writing, either solution will be ok, although you didn't say what volume per second you are storing. Both solutions have things to watch out for.
Search (very quick) over all columns. For smaller volumes, say few hundred Gb, then either solution will be Ok (assuming skilled people put it together). You didn't actually say how fast/often you search, so if it is many times per minute this consideration becomes more important. Fast search can often slow down ability to write high volumes quickly as indexes required for search need to be updated.
Audit records typically have a time component, so searching that is time constrained, eg within last 7 days, will significantly speed up search times compared to search all records.
Reporting. When you get up to 100Tb, you are going to need some real tricks, or a big budget, to get fast reporting. For static reporting, you will probably end up creating one program that generates multiple reports at once to save I/O. Dynamic reports will be the tricky one.
My opinion? Since you know RDBMS, I would start with that as a method and ship the solution. This buys you time to learn the real problems you will encounter (the no premature optimization that many on SO are keen on). During this initial timeframe you can start to select nosql solutions and learn them. I am assuming here that you want to run your own hardware/database, if you want to use cloud type solutions, then go to them straight away.
I need to choose a Database for storing data remotely from a big number (thousands to tens of thousands) of sensors that would generate around one entry per minute each.
The said data needs to be queried in a variety of ways from counting data with certain characteristics for statistics to simple outputting for plotting.
I am looking around for the right tool, I started with MySQL but I feel like it lacks the scalability needed for this project, and this lead me to noSQL databases which I don't know much about.
Which Database, either relational or not would be a good choice?
Thanks.
There is usually no "best" database since they all involve trade-offs of one kind or another. Your question is also very vague because you don't say anything about your performance needs other than the number of inserts per minute (how much data per insert?) and that you need "scalability".
It also looks like a case of premature optimization because you say you "feel like [MySQL] lacks the scalability needed for this project", but it doesn't sound like you've run any tests to confirm whether this is a real problem. It's always better to get real data rather than base an important architectural decision on "feelings".
Here's a suggestion:
Write a simple test program that inserts 10,000 rows of sample data per minute
Run the program for a decent length of time (a few days or more) to generate a sizable chunk of test data
Run your queries to see if they meet your performance needs (which you haven't specified -- how fast do they need to be? how often will they run? how complex are they?)
You're testing at least two things here: whether your database can handle 10,000 inserts per minute and whether your queries will run quickly enough once you have a huge amount of data. With large datasets these will become competing priorities since you need indexes for fast queries, but indexes will start to slow down your inserts over time. At some point you'll need to think about data archival as well (or purging, if historical data isn't needed) both for performance and for practical reasons (finite storage space).
These will be concerns no matter what database you select. From what little you've told us about your retrieval needs ("counting data with certain characteristics" and "simple outputting for plotting") it sounds like any type of database will do. It may be that other concerns are more important, such as ease of development (what languages and tools are you using?), deployment, management, code maintainability, etc.
Since this is sensor data we're talking about, you may also want to look at a round robin database (RRD) such as RRDTool to see if that approach better serves your needs.
Found this question while googling for "database for sensor data"
One of very helpful search-results (along with this SO question) was this blog:
Actually I've started a similar project (http://reatha.de) but realized too late, that I'm using not the best technologies available. My approach was similar MySQL + PHP. Finally I realized that this is not scalable and stopped the project.
Additionally, a good starting point is looking at the list of data-bases in Heroku:
If they use one, then it should be not the worst one.
I hope this helps.
you can try to use Redis noSQL database
All, I'm a programmer by trade but for this particular project I'm finidng myself being the DBA as well. Here is the scenario I'm faced with:
Web app with anywhere from 400-1000 customers. A customer is a "physical company", each of which has n-number of uers. Each customer (company) has on average 1GB worth of data (total of about 200 million rows). Each company has probably 80% similar data in terms of the type of data stored. The other 20% is custom data that the companies can themselves define (basically custom fields).
I am trying to figure out the best way to scale this on the cheap when you conisder that the customers need pretty good reaction time. For example, customer X might want to grab all records where last name like 'smith' and phone like '555' where as customer Y might want to grab all records where account number equals '1526A'.
Bottom line, performance is key and I'm finding it hard to decide what to index and if that is even going to help me given the fact these guys can basically create their own query through the UI.
My question is, what would you do? Do you think it would be wise to break each customer out into it's own DB? Total DB size at the moment is around 400GB.
It is a complete re-write so I have the fortune of being able to start fresh if needed. Any thoughts, hints would be greatly appreciated.
Bottom line, performance is key and
I'm finding it hard to decide what to
index and if that is even going to
help me given the fact these guys can
basically create their own query
through the UI.
Bottom line, you're ceding your DB performance to the whims of your clients. If they're able to "create their own query", then they're able to "create their own REALLY BAD queries".
So, if you run this in a shared environment (i.e. the same hardware), then customer A's awful table scans can saturate the I/O for everyone else.
If they're on the same database server, then Customer A's scans get to flush all of your other customers data from the data cache.
Basically, the more you "share", the more one customer can impact the operations of other customers. If you give customers the capability to do expensive things, and share much of it, then everyone suffers.
So, the options are a) don't let the customers do silly things or b) keep the customers as separated as practical so that when one does do silly things, the phones don't light up from all of the other customers.
If you don't know "what to index" then you are not offering much control over what the customers can do, and thus the silly thing factor goes way up.
You would probably get quite far by offering several popular, pre-made SQL views that the customers can select from, and then they're limited to simply filtering and possibly ordering the results. Then you optimize around execution of those views.
It's likely that surprisingly few "general" views can cover a large amount of the use cases.
Generic, silly queries can be delegated to a batch process that runs overnight, during off hours, or to a separate machine that doesn't impact transactional performance, such as a nightly snapshot with "everything but todays data" on it. Let them run historic queries against that.
The SO question How to design a multi tenant database has a link to a decent article on the tradeoffs along the spectrum from "shared nothing" to "shared everything". Also, SO has a tag for those kinds of questions; I added it for you.
Creating separate databases on the same server won't help you get better performance. The performance optimisations available to you with multiple databases are just the same as you can achieve with one database.
Separate databases might make sense for administrative reasons - if different backup or availability requirements apply to different customers for example.
It's still probably sensible to build your application so that it can support multiple databases so that you have the option of scaling out over multiple DB servers.
If you have seperate databases the 80% that is the same beciomes almost impossible to keep the same over time. YOu will end up spending far more money for maintenance.
Luckly SQL Server has some options for you. First put the customer sspeicifc information in the same database in a separate schema and the common stuff in a differnt schema(create a common schema and a schema for each client).
Next set up data partitioning by client. This can require the proper hardware to do this effectively.
Now you have one code base for common which will promugate changes to all clients at once and clients are separated for performance using the partitions.
The higher-ups in my company were told by good friends that flat files are the way to go, and we should switch from SQL Server to them for everything we do. We have over 300 servers and hundreds of different databases. From just the few I'm involved with we have > 10 billion records in quite a few of them with upwards of 100k new records a day and who knows how many updates... Me and a couple others need to come up with a response saying why we shouldn't do this. Most of our stuff is ASP.NET with some legacy ASP. We thought that making a simple console app that tests/times the same interactions between a flat file (stored on the network) and SQL over the network doing large inserts, searches, updates etc along with things like network disconnects randomly. This would show them how bad flat files can be, especially when you are dealing with millions of records.
What things should I use in my response? What should I do with my demo code to illustrate this?
My sort list so far:
Security
Concurrent access
Performance with large amounts of data
Amount of time to do such a massive rewrite/switch and huge $ cost
Lack of transactions
PITA to map relational data to flat files
NTFS doesn't support tons of files in a directory well
Lack of Adhoc data searching/manipulation
Enforcing data integrity
Recovery from network outage
Client delay while waiting for other clients changes to commit
Most everybody stopped using flat files for this type of storage long ago for good reason
Load balancing/replication
I fear that this will be a great post on the Daily WTF someday if I can't stop it now.
Additionally
Does anyone know if anything about HIPPA could be used in this fight? Many of our records are patient records...
Data integrity. First, you can enforce it in a database and cannot in a flat file. Second, you can ensure you have referential integrity between different entities to prevent orphaning rows.
Efficiency in storage depending on the nature of the data. If the data is naturally broken into entities, then a database will be more efficient than lots of flat files from the standpoint of the additional code that will need to be written in the case of flat files in order to join data.
Native query capabilities. You can query against a database natively whereas you cannot with a flat file. With a flat file you have to load the file into some other environment (e.g. a C# application) and use its capabilities to query against it.
Format integrity. The database format is more rigid which means more consistent. A flat file can easily change in a way that the code that reads the flat file(s) will break. The difference is related to #3. In a database, if the schema changes, you can still query against it using native tools. If the flat file format changes, you have to effectively do a search because the code that reads it will likely be broken.
"Universal" language. SQL is somewhat ubiquitous where as the structure of the flat file is far more malleable.
I'd also mention data corruption. Most modern SQL databases can have the power killed on the server, or have the server instance crash and you won't (shouldn't) loose data. Flat files aren't really that way.
Also I'd mention search times. Perhaps even write a simple flat file database with 1mil entries and show search times vs MS SQL. With indexes you should be able to search a SQL database thousands of times faster.
I'd also be careful how quickly you write off flat files. Id go so far as saying "it's a good idea for many cases, but in our case....". This way you won't sound like you're not listening to the other views. Tact in situations like this is a major thing to consider. They may be horribly wrong, but you have to convince your boss of that.
What do they gain from using flat files? The conversion process will be hundreds of hours - hours they pay for. How quickly can flat files generate a positive return on that investment? Provide a rough cost estimate. Translate the technical considerations into money (costs), and it puts the problem in their perspective.
On top of just the data conversion, add in the hidden costs for duplicating a database's capabilities...
Indexing
Transaction processing
Logging
Access control
Performance
Security
Databases allow you to easily index your data to be able to particular records or groups of records by searching any number of different columns.
With flat files you have to write your own indexing mechanisms. There is no need to do all that work again when the database does it for you already.
If you use "text files", you'll need to build an interface on top of it which Microsoft has already done for you and called it SQL Server.
Ask your managers if it makes sense to your company to spend all these resources building a home-made database system (because really that's what it is), or would these resources be better spent focusing on the business.
Performance: SQL Server is built for storing conveniently searchable data. It has optimized data structures in memory built with searching/inserting/deleting in mind. Usage of the disk is lowered, as data regularly queried is kept in memory.
Business partners: if you ever plan to do B2B with 3rd party companies, SQL Server has built-in functionality for it called Linked Servers. If you have only a bunch of files, your business partner will give up on you as no data interconnection is possible. Unless you want to re-invent the wheel again, and build an interface for each business partner you have.
Clustering: you can easily cluster servers in SQL Server for high availability and speed, a lot more than what's possible with text based solution.
You have a nice start to your list. The items I would add include:
Data integrity - SQL engines provide built-in mechanisms (relationships, constraints, triggers, etc.) that make it very simple to reduce the amount of "bad" data in your system. You would need to hand code all data constraint separately if you use flat files.
Add-Hoc data retrieval - SQL engines, through the use of SELECT statements, provide a means of filtering and summarizing your data with very little code. If you are using flat files, considerably more code is needed to get the same results.
These items can be replicated if you want to take the time to build a data engine, but what would be the point? SQL engines already provide these benefits.
I don't think I can even start to list the reasons. I think my head is going to explode. I'll take the risk though to try to help you...
Simulate a network outage and show what happens to one of the files at that point
Demo the horrors of a half-committed transaction because text files don't pass the ACID test
If it's a multi-user application, show how long a client has to wait when 500 connections are all trying to update the same text file
Try to politely explain why the best approach to making business decisions is to listen to the professionals who you are paying money and who know the domain (in this case, IT) and not your buddy who doesn't have a clue (maybe leave out that last bit)
Mention the fact that 99% (made up number) of the business world uses relational databases for their important data, not text files and there's probably a reason for that
Show what happens to your application when someone goes into the text file and types in "haha!" for a column that's supposed to be an integer
If you are a public company, the shareholders would be well served to know this is being seriously contemplated. "We" all know this is a ridiculous suggestion given the size and scope of your operation. Patient records must be protected, not only from security breaches but from irresponsible exposure to loss - lives may depend up the data. If the Executives care at all about the patients, THIS should be their highest concern.
I worked with IBM 370 mainframes from '74 onwards and the day that DB2 took over from plain old flat files, VSAM and ISAM was a milestone day. Haven't looked back to flat-file storage, except for streaming data, in my 25 years with RDBMSs of 4 flavors.
If I owned stock in "you", dumping it in a hurry the moment the project took off would seem appropriate...
Your list is a great start of reasons for sticking with a database.
However, I would recommend that if you're talking to a technical person, to shy away from technical reasons in a recommendation because they might come across as biased.
Here are my 2 points against flat file data storage:
1) Security - HIPPA audits require that patient data remain in a secure environment. The common database systems (Oracle, Microsoft SQL, MySQL) have methods for implementing HIPPA compliant security access. Doing so on a flat-file would be difficult, at best.
Side note: I've also seen medical practices that encrypt the patient name in the database to add extra layers of protection & compliance to ensure even if their DB is compromised that the patient records are not at risk.
2) Reporting - Reporting from any structured database system is simple and common. There are hundreds of thousands of developers that can perform this task. Reporting from flat-files will require an above-average developer. And, because there is no generally accepted method for doing reporting off of a flat-file database, one developer might do things different than another. This could impact the talent pool able to work on a home-grown flat-file system, and ultimately drive costs up by having to support that type of a system.
I hope that helps.
How do you create a relational model with plain text files?
Or are you planning to use a different file for each entity?
Pro file system:
Stable (less lines of code = less bugs, easier to understand, more reliable)
Faster with huge data blobs
Searching/sorting is somewhat slow (but sort can be faster than SQL's order by)
So you'd chose a filesystem to create log files, for example. Logging into a DB is useless unless you need to do complex analysis of the data.
Pro DB:
Transactions (which includes concurrent access)
It can search through huge amounts of records (but not through huge blobs of data)
Chopping the data in all kinds of ways with queries is easy (well, if you know your SQL and the special "oddities" of your DB)
So if you need to add data rarely but search it often, select parts of it by certain criteria or aggregate values, a DB is for you.
NTFS does not support mass amounts of .txt files well. Depending on how a flat file system is developed, the health of a harddrive can become an issue. A lot of older file systems use mass amount of small .txt files to store data. It's bad design, but tends to happen as a flat file system gets older.
Fragmentation becomes an issue, and you lose a text file here and there, causing you to lose small amounts of data. Health of a hard drive should not be an issue when it comes to database design.
This is indeed, on the part of your employer, a MAJOR WTF if he's seriously proposing flat files for everything...
You already know the reasons (oh - add Replication / Load Balancing to your list) - what you need to do now is to convince him of them. My approach on this would two fold.
First of all, I would write a script in whatever tool you currently use to perform a basic operation using SQL, and have it timed. I would then write another script in which you sincerely try to get a flat text solution working, and then highlight the difference in performance. Give him both sets of code so he knows you aren't cheating.
Point out that technology evolves, and that just because someone was successful 20 years ago, this does not automatically entitle them to a credible opinion now.
You might also want to mention the scope for errors in decoding / encoding information in text files, that it would be trivial for someone to steal them, and the costs (justify your estimate) in adapting the current code base to use text files.
I would then ask serious questions of management - foremost amongst them, and I would ask this DIRECTLY, is "Why are you prepared to overrule your technical staff on technical matters" based on one other individual's opinion - especially when said individual is not as familiar with our set up as we are...
I'd also then use the phrase "I do not mean to belittle you, but I seriously feel I have to intervene at this point for the good of the company..."
Another approach - turn the tables - have Mr. Wonderful supply arguments as to why text files are the way forward. You'll then either a) Learn something (not likely), or b) Be in a position to utterly destroy his arguments.
Good luck with this - I feel your pain...
Martin
I suggest you get your retalliation in first, post on Daily WTF now.
As to your question: a business reason would be why does your boss want to rewrite all your systems. From scratch as you would, effectively, have to write your own database system.
For a development reason, you would lose access to the SQL server ecosystem, all the libraries, tools, utilities.
Perhaps the guy that suggested this is actually thinking of going into competition with your company.
Simplest way to refute this argument - name a fortune 500 company that processes data on this scale using flat files?
Now name a fortune 500 company that doesn't use a relational database...
Case closed.
Something is really fishy here. For someone to get the terminology right ( "flat file" ) but not know how overwhelmingly stupid an idea that is, it just doesn't add up. I would be willing to be your manager is non-technical, but the person your manager is talking to is. This sounds more like a lost in translation problem.
Are you sure they don't mean no-SQL, as if you are in a document centric environment, moving away from a relational database actually does make sense in some regards, while still having many of the positives of a tradition RDBMS.
So, instead of justifying why SQL is better than flat files, I would invert the problem and ask what problems flat files are meant to solve. I would put odds on money that this is a communication problem.
If its not and your company is actually considering replacing its DB with a home grown flat file system off the recommendation of "a friend", convincing your manager why he is wrong is the least of your worries. Instead, dust off and start circulating your resume.
•Amount of time to do such a massive
rewrite/switch and huge $ cost
It's not just amount of time it is the introduction of new bugs. A re-write of these proportions would cause things that currenty work to break.
I'd suggest a giving him a cost estimate of the hours to do such a rewrite for just one system and then the number of systems that would need to change. Once they have a cost estimate, they will run from this as fast as they can.
Managers like numbers, so do a formal written decision analysis. Compare the two proposals by benefits and risks, side by side with numeric values. When you get to cost 0 to maintain and 100,000,000 to convert they will get the point.
The people that doesn't distinguish between flat files and sql, doesnt understand all arguments that you say before.
The explanation must simple as possible, something like this:
SQL is a some kind of search/concurrency wrapper around the flat files.
All the problems that exist currently, will stay even the company going to write the wrapper from zero.
Also you must to give some other way to resolve the current problems, use smart words like advanced BLL or install/uninstall scripting environment. :)
You have to speak executive. Without saying it, make them realize they're in way over their heads here. Here's some ammunition:
Database theory is hardcore computer science. We're talking about building a scalable system that can handle millions of records and tolerate disasters without putting everyone out of business.
This is the work of PhD-level specialists. They've been refining the field for a good 20 years now, and the great thing about that is this: it allows us to specialize in building business systems.
If you have to, come right out and say that this just isn't done in the enterprise. It would be costly and the result would be inferior. It's exactly the kind of wheel that developers love to reinvent, and in my opinion the only time you should is if the result is going to be a product or service that you can sell. And it won't be.