with "Data Store Garbage Collection" I mean the Apache Jackrabbit one
I'm working on an application having a huge database repository, its default_bundle Oracle table is 55G big
In that application, the data store garbage collector has been disabled for years, so if you know Jackrabbit you know we have a lot of gigabytes of trash in the global datastore in file-system.
So the Datastore Garbage Collection should be the only solution, but I'm worried that it will run for days, maybe weeks scanning the whole repository, so I would like to be able to interrupt it but I have no idea how to do it or I would like to run it in an alternative faster way, step by step for example, that is scanning partially repository for example.
Thanks
Related
Trying to scope out a project that involves data ingestion and analytics, and could use some advice on tooling and software.
We have sensors creating records with 2-3 fields, each one producing ~200 records per second (~2kb/second) and will send them off to a remote server once per minute resulting in about ~18 mil records and 200MB of data per day per sensor. Not sure how many sensors we will need but it will likely start off in the single digits.
We need to be able to take action (alert) on recent data (not sure the time period guessing less than 1 day), as well as run queries on the past data. We'd like something that scales and is relatively stable .
Was thinking about using elastic search (then maybe use x-pack or sentinl for alerting). Thought about Postgres as well. Kafka and Hadoop are definitely overkill. We're on AWS so we have access to tools like kinesis as well.
Question is, what would be an appropriate set of software / architecture for the job?
Have you talked to your AWS Solutions Architect about the use case? They love this kind of thing, they'll be happy to help you figure out the right architecture. It may be a good fit for the AWS IoT services?
If you don't go with the managed IoT services, you'll want to push the messages to a scalable queue like Kafka or Kinesis (IMO, if you are processing 18M * 5 sensors = 90M events per day, that's >1000 events per second. Kafka is not overkill here; a lot of other stacks would be under-kill).
From Kinesis you then flow the data into a faster stack for analytics / querying, such as HBase, Cassandra, Druid or ElasticSearch, depending on your team's preferences. Some would say that this is time series data so you should use a time series database such as InfluxDB; but again, it's up to you. Just make sure it's a database that performs well (and behaves itself!) when subjected to a steady load of 1000 writes per second. I would not recommend using a RDBMS for that, not even Postgres. The ones mentioned above should all handle it.
Also, don't forget to flow your messages from Kinesis to S3 for safe keeping, even if you don't intend to keep the messages forever (just set a lifecycle rule to delete old data from the bucket if that's the case). After all, this is big data and the rule is "everything breaks, all the time". If your analytical stack crashes you probably don't want to lose the data entirely.
As for alerting, it depends 1) what stack you choose for the analytical part, and 2) what kinds of triggers you want to use. From your description I'm guessing you'll soon end up wanting to build more advanced triggers, such as machine learning models for anomaly detection, and for that you may want something that doesn't poll the analytical stack but rather consumes events straight out of Kinesis.
I have a Google appengine application, written in Go, that has a cron process which runs once a day at 3am. This process looks at all of the changes that have happened to my data during the day and stores some meta data about what happened. My users can run reports on this meta data to see trends that have happened over several months. The process does around 10-20 million datastore writes every night. It all works just fine, but since I have started running it I have noticed a significant increase in my monthly bill from Google (from around $50/month to around $400/month).
I have just setup a very basic taskqueue that this runs in, I have not changed the default settings at all. Is there a better way that I could be running this process at night that could save me money? I have never messed around with the backends (which are now depreciated) or the modules api, and I know they've changed a lot of this stuff recently so I'm not sure where to start looking. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
Look at your instances at 3am. It might be that GAE spins up a lot of them to handle the job. You could configure your job to make it run less paralel so it will take longer but perhaps it will need only 1 instance then.
However, if your database writes are indeed the biggest factor this won't make a big impact.
You can try looking at your data models and indexes. Remember that each indexed field costs 2 writes extra, so see if you can remove indexes from some fields if you don't need them.
One improvement that you can do is to batch your write operations, you can use memcache for this (pay the dedicated one since it's more reliable). Write the updates to memcache, once it's about 900K, flush it to datastore. This will reduces the number of write to datastore A LOT, especially if your metadata's size is small.
I have a high-performance application I'm considering making distributed (using rabbitMQ as the MQ). The application uses a database (currently SQLServer, but I can still switch to something else) and caches most of it in the RAM to increase performance.
This causes a problem because when one of the applications writes to the database, the others' cached database becomes out-of-date.
I figured it is something that happens a lot in the High-Availability community, however I couldn't find anything useful. I guess I'm not searching for the right thing.
Is there an out-of-the-box solution?
PS: I'm sorry if this belongs to serverfault - Since this a development issue I figured it belongs here
EDIT:
The application reads and writes to the database. Since I'm changing the application to be distributed - Now more than one application reads and writes to the database. The caching is done in each of the distributed applications, which are not aware to DB changes from another application.
I mean - How can one know if the DB was updated, if he wasn't the one to update it?
So you have one database and many applications on various servers. Each application has its own cache and all the applications are reading and writing to the database.
Look at a distributed cache instead of caching locally. Check out memcached or AppFabric. I've had success using AppFabric to cache things in a Microsoft stack. You can simply add new nodes to AppFabric and it will automatically distribute the objects for high availability.
If you move to a shared cache, then you can put expiration times on objects in the cache. Try to resist the temptation to proactively evict items when things change. It becomes a very difficult problem.
I would recommend isolating your critical items and only cache them once. As an example, when working on an auction site, we cached very aggressively. We only cached an auction listing's price once. That way when someone else bid on it, we only had to do one eviction. We didn't have to go through the entire cache and ask "Where does the price appear? Change it!"
For 95% of your data, the reads will expire on their own and writes won't affect them immediately. 5% of your data needs to be evicted when a new write comes in. This is what I called your "critical items". Things that always need to be up to date.
Hope that gives you ideas!
It seems like something that should take place in a flash, at least locally. Is there some time emulation of the production server that causes it?
It depends how much data is saved in your local datastore and how fast your disk is. I've noticed if you have a lot of deleted data in your datastore, the file still ends up being big.
If you want to clear the database, it's better to delete the whole file than delete all the individual entities.
I'm deploying the Apache Solr web app in two redundant Tomcat 6 servers,
to provide redundancy and improved availability. At this point, scalability is not a issue.
I have a load balancer that can dynamically route traffic to one server or the other or both.
I know that Solr supports master/slave configuration, but that requires manual recovery if the slave receives updates during the master outage (which it will in my use case).
I'm considering a simpler approach using the ability to reload a core:
- only one of the two servers is receiving traffic at any time (the "active" instance), but both are running,
- both instances share the same index data and
- before re-routing traffic due to an outage, the now active instance is told to reload the index core(s)
Limited testing of failovers with both index reads and writes has been successful. What implications/issues am I missing?
Your thoughts and opinions welcomed.
The simple approach to redundancy your considering seems reasonable but you will not be able to use it for disaster recovery unless you can share the data/index to/from a different physical location using your NAS/SAN.
Here are some suggestions:-
Make backups for disaster recovery and test those backups work as an index could conceivably have been corrupted as there are no checksums happening internally in SOLR/Lucene. An index could get wiped or some records could get deleted and merged away without you knowing it and backups can be useful for recovering those records/docs at a later time if you need to perform an investigation.
Before you re-route traffic to the second instance I would run some queries to load caches and also to test and confirm the current index works before it goes online.
Isolate the updates to one location and process and thread to ensure transactional integrity in the event of a cutover as it could be difficult to manage consistency as SOLR does not use a vector clock to synchronize updates like some databases. I personally would keep a copy of all updates in order separately from SOLR in some other store just in case a small time window needs to be repeated.
In general, my experience with SOLR has been excellent as long as you are not using cutting edge features and plugins. I have one instance that currently has 40 million docs and an uptime of well over a year with no issues. That doesn't mean you wont have issues but gives you an idea of how stable it could be.
I hardly know anything about Solr, so I don't know the answers to some of the questions that need to be considered with this sort of setup, but I can provide some things for consideration. You will have to consider what sorts of failures you want to protect against and why and make your decision based on that. There is, after all, no perfect system.
Both instances are using the same files. If the files become corrupt or unavailable for some reason (hardware fault, software bug), the second instance is going to fail the same as the first.
On a similar note, are the files stored and accessed in such a way that they are always valid when the inactive instance reads them? Will the inactive instance try to read the files when the active instance is writing them? What would happen if it does? If the active instance is interrupted while writing the index files (power failure, network outage, disk full), what will happen when the inactive instance tries to load them? The same questions apply in reverse if the 'inactive' instance is going to be writing to the files (which isn't particularly unlikely if it wasn't designed with this use in mind; it might for example update some sort of idle statistic).
Also, reloading the indices sounds like it could be a rather time-consuming operation, and service will not be available while it is happening.
If the active instance needs to complete an orderly shutdown before the inactive instance loads the indices (perhaps due to file validity problems mentioned above), this could also be time-consuming and cause unavailability. If the active instance can't complete an orderly shutdown, you're gonna have a bad time.