I'm running into a performance issue with Google Cloud Bigtable Python Client. I'm working on a flask API that writes to and reads from a GCP Bigtable instance. The API uses the python client to communicate with Bigtable, and was deployed to GCP App Engine flexible environment.
Under low traffic, the API works fine. However during a load test, the endpoints that reads and writes to Bigtable suffers a huge performance decrease compare to a similar endpoint that doesn't communicate with Bigtable. Also, a large percentage of requests went to the endpoint receives a 502 Bad Gateway, even when health check was turned off in App Engine.
I'm aware of that the client is currently in Alpha. I wonder if the performance issue is known, or if anyone also ran into the same issue
Update
I found a documentation from Google stating:
There are issues with the network connection. Network issues can
reduce throughput and cause reads and writes to take longer than
usual. In particular, you'll see issues if your clients are not
running in the same zone as your Cloud Bigtable cluster.
In my case, my client is in a different region, by moving it to the same region had a huge increase in performance. However the performance issue still exist, and the recommendation from the documentation is to put client in the same zone as Bigtable.
I also considered using Container engine or Compute Engine where it is easier to specify the zone, but I want stay with App Engine for its autoscale functionality and managed services.
Bigtable client take somewhere between 3 ms to 20 ms to complete each request, and because python is single threaded, during that period of time it will just wait until the response comes back. The best solution we found was for any writes, publish the request to Pubsub, then use Dataflow to write to Bigtable. It is significantly faster because publishing a message in Python would take way below 1 ms to complete, and because Dataflow can be set to exactly the same region as Bigtable, and it is easy to parallel, it can write much faster.
Though it doesn't solve the scenario where you need frequent read or write need to be instantaneous
Related
App Engine has been great for requests that process quickly with no external API calls to databases or caches or third-party resources, but we've found that introducing any sort of "longer running" component or external latency (for example in a HTTP POST operation that runs asynchronously in the background and might take a second or two to process a few more intense database queries... totally invisible and OK from a UX perspective on the client-side because it's asynchronous but expensive to App Engine billing since it's long running) ... the "instance hours" compound and drive costs up considerably.
These sorts of expense inducing situations where a request is literally just waiting for a response from an external resource and requiring almost zero CPU during their idling seem avoidable, but I'm not sure if it's avoidable with App Engine.
It's almost like a "long poll" where the response might be left open but doing nothing.
Is there a way to do this on App Engine without just paying an insane amount for instance hours, or would we be better off moving to Compute Engine or EC2? Does it scale automatically based on CPU load, or is it based solely on open and perhaps inactive requests in total count? — threadsafe is indeed enabled.
There are really two ways to go about this one (top of mind).
Use Task Queues!
If the work doesn't need to be exactly at the same time of the request, this is exactly what [task queues] in App Engine are for. They allow you to put a job on a queue, and have another module pick up the work. They're kind of great because you can separately scale your front end and back end processes.
If that doesn't work....
Use App Engine Flexible
Under the hood App Engine Flexible is just running GCE instances. The cost structure is entirely different, since you persistently have a VM running in the background serving your requests.
Hope this helps!
What you're really worried about here is how App Engine scales your instances. Because many of your requests require few resources, your app might be able to handle many more concurrent requests on a single instance than normal. You can look into parameters that shape scaling here. Of particular interest:
max_concurrent_requests The number of concurrent requests an automatic scaling instance can accept before the scheduler spawns a new instance (Default: 8, Maximum: 80).
There is a danger here, where an instance may fill up with non-long-polling requests and become overburdened. To prevent that, you could isolate your long-polling requests into their own service and set its scaling parameters separately from the rest of your app.
I'm considering building an app on App Engine, and I'm trying to decide if I should store data in the datastore or on google cloud storage.
Each object is going to be typically no more than around a kilobyte, perhaps a few kilobytes at most (and often less). It won't change too often.
I could have the client directly access the data, but though I might live without there would be some benefit to the app engine app accessing the data and using it as part of serving a response.
What are the performance characteristics of google cloud storage? How quickly do requests come back? I was able to find a status dashboard for the datastore which indicates that they are usually reasonably quick at handling requests but I've had trouble getting guidance on how fast GCS is.
Under the most recent price reductions, it seems like the datastore might actually be cheaper for my use case of relatively small chunks of data ($0.06/100,000 requests vs $0.01/10,000 class b operations). Am I interpreting that correctly?
This thread might give you some insights. Back in september 2013 I had about 200-250ms on average for "blank" sequential inserts. You can get a great speedup if you combine your requests. You can insert up to 500 entities in a single request. Which takes roughly 500ms-900ms if I remember correctly.
Currently clouds are mushrooming like crazy and people start to deploy everything to the cloud including CMS systems, but so far I have not seen people that have succeeded in deploying popular CMS systems to a load balanced cluster in the cloud. Some performance hurdles seem to prevent standard open-source CMS systems to be deployed to the cloud like this.
CLOUD: A cloud, better load-balanced cluster, has at least one frontend-server, one network-connected(!) database-server and one cloud-storage server. This fits well to Amazon Beanstalk and Google Appengine. (This specifically excludes CMS on a single computer or Linux server with MySQL on the same "CPU".)
To deploy a standard CMS in such a load balanced cluster needs a cloud-ready CMS with the following characteristics:
The CMS must deal with the latency of queries to still be responsive and render pages in less than a second to be cached (or use a precaching strategy)
The filesystem probably must be connected to a remote storage (Amazon S3, Google cloudstorage, etc.)
Currently I know of python/django and Wordpress having middleware modules or plugins that can connect to cloud storages instead of a filesystem, but there might be other cloud-ready CMS implementations (Java, PHP, ?) and systems.
I myself have failed to deploy django-CMS to the cloud, finally due to query latency of the remote DB. So here is my question:
Did you deploy an open-source CMS that still performs well in rendering pages and backend admin? Please post your average page rendering access stats in microseconds for uncached pages.
IMPORTANT: Please describe your configuration, the problems you have encountered, which modules had to be optimized in the CMS to make it work, don't post simple "this works", contribute your experience and knowledge.
Such a CMS probably has to make fewer than 10 queries per page, if more, the queries must be made in parallel, and deal with filesystem access times of 100ms for a stat and query delays of 40ms.
Related:
Slow MySQL Remote Connection
Have you tried Umbraco?
It relies on database, but it keeps layers of cache so you arent doing selects on every request.
http://umbraco.com/azure
It works great on azure too!
I have found an excellent performance test of Wordpress on Appengine. It appears that Google has spent some time to optimize this system for load-balanced cluster and remote DB deployment:
http://www.syseleven.de/blog/4118/google-app-engine-php/
Scaling test from the report.
parallel
hits GAE 1&1 Sys11
1 1,5 2,6 8,5
10 9,8 8,5 69,4
100 14,9 - 146,1
Conclusion from the report the system is slower than on traditional hosting but scales much better.
http://developers.google.com/appengine/articles/wordpress
We have managed to deploy python django-CMS (www.django-cms.org) on GoogleAppEngine with CloudSQL as DB and CloudStore as Filesystem. Cloud store was attached by forking and fixing a django.storage module by Christos Kopanos http://github.com/locandy/django-google-cloud-storage
After that, the second set of problems came up as we discovered we had access times of up to 17s for a single page access. We have investigated this and found that easy-thumbnails 1.4 accessed the normal file system for mod_time requests while writing results to the store (rendering all thumb images on every request). We switched to the development version where that was already fixed.
Then we worked with SmileyChris to fix unnecessary access of mod_times (stat the file) on every request for every image by tracing and posting issues to http://github.com/SmileyChris/easy-thumbnails
This reduced access times from 12-17s to 4-6s per public page on the CMS basically eliminating all storage/"file"-system access. Once that was fixed, easy-thumbnails replaced (per design) file-system accesses with queries to the DB to check on every request if a thumbnail's source image has changed.
One thing for the web-designer: if she uses a image.width statement in the template this forces a ugly slow read on the "filesystem", because image widths are not cached.
Further investigation led to the conclusion that DB accesses are very costly, too and take about 40ms per roundtrip.
Up to now the deployment is unsuccessful mostly due to DB access times in the cloud leading to 4-5s delays on rendering a page before caching it.
Does anyone have any advice on making the logging in Google App Engine better? I am currently trying to use Splunk Storm, but they are finicky regarding input and go down often. Has anyone else encountered this and solved it in some capacity?
Currently I have a process that runs in a backend that reads from the LogService and pipes the logs into Splunk Storm via REST api. This often fails, or storm goes down, or the backend IP changes.
My issue is with the logging provided within App Engine, as the logs disappear when new versions are pushed and querying the logs with the provided dashboard is almost unusable. Splunk was a potential solution, but the cloud solution leaves a lot to be desired.
Anything that would provide a better interface into my logs would be appreciated.
You can export logs from GAE to BiqQuery which has quite capable query language. You can use Mache, an open-source project that already does this. You should write your own exporter, to expose (and make queryabe) fields (columns) you are interested in.
Since you've decided to use Splunk (or another external service) as permanent storage, it sounds like you need a location to buffer logs between the times when they're written to App Engine's log service and when Splunk is available to accept the logs. To avoid losing logs before version churn causes them to fall out of App Engine, this buffer needs to be fast and highly available.
One reasonable choice is the AE datastore. There's no unreliable hop to a 3rd party, it has an availability SLA, and it can be scaled arbitrarily by sharding writes. The downside would be the cost of R/W operations and the storage footprint of in-flight logs, but you'll incur a comparable cost for another backing store.
Whatever choice of service, have one batch process (e.g. backend or cronjob) write to the buffer from the logs reader API. As long as it runs more often than app updates, logs will always exist in durable storage. Then have another batch process wait for Splunk to be available then upload to it from the buffer and delete as you get receipt confirmation from Splunk.
I'm currently looking for a Cloud PaaS that will allow me to scale an application to handle anything between 1 user and 10 Million+ users ... I've never worked on anything this big and the big question that I can't seem to get a clear answer for is that if you develop, let's say a standard application with a relational database and soap-webservices, will this application scale automatically when deployed on a Paas solution or do you still need to build the application with fall-over, redundancy and all those things in mind?
Let's say I deploy a Spring Hibernate application to Amazon EC2 and I create single instance of Ubuntu Server with Tomcat installed, will this application just scale indefinitely or do I need more Ubuntu instances? If more than one Ubuntu instance is needed, does Amazon take care of running the application over both instances or is this the developer's responsibility? What about database storage, can I install a database on EC2 that will scale as the database grow or do I need to use one of their APIs instead if I want it to scale indefinitely?
CloudFoundry allows you to build locally and just deploy straight to their PaaS, but since it's in beta, there's a limit on the amount of resources you can use and databases are limited to 128MB if I remember correctly, so this a no-go for now. Some have suggested installing CloudFoundry on Amazon EC2, how does it scale and how is the database layer handled then?
GAE (Google App Engine), will this allow me to just deploy an app and not have to worry about how it scales and implements redundancy? There appears to be some limitations one what you can and can't run on GAE and their price increase recently upset quite a large number of developers, is it really that expensive compared to other providers?
So basically, will it scale and what needs to be done to make it scale?
That's a lot of questions for one post. Anyway:
Amazon EC2 does not scale automatically with load. EC2 is basically just a virtual machine. You can achieve scaling of EC2 instances with Auto Scaling and Elastic Load Balancing.
SQL databases scale poorly. That's why people started using NoSQL databases in the first place. It's best to see which database your cloud provider offers as a managed service: Datastore on GAE and DynamoDB on Amazon.
Installing your own database on EC2 instances is very impractical as EC2 has ephemeral storage (it looses all data on "disk" when it reboots).
GAE Datastore is actually a one big database for all applications running on it. So it's pretty scalable - your million of users should not be a problem for it.
http://highscalability.com/blog/2011/1/11/google-megastore-3-billion-writes-and-20-billion-read-transa.html
Yes App Engine scales automatically, both frontend instances and database. There is nothing special you need to do to make it scale, just use their API.
There are limitations what you can do with AppEngine:
A. No local storage (filesystem) - you need to use Datastore or Blobstore.
B. Comet is only supported via their proprietary Channels API
C. Datastore is a NoSQL database: no JOINs, limited queries, limited transactions.
Cost of GAE is not bad. We do 1M requests a day for about 5 dollars a day. The biggest saving comes from the fact that you do not need a system admin on GAE ( but you do need one for EC2). Compared to the cost of manpower GAE is incredibly cheap.
Some hints to save money (an speed up) GAE:
A. Use get instead of query in Datastore (requires carefully crafting natiral keys).
B. Use memcache to cache data you got form datastore. This can be done automatically with objectify and it's #Cached annotation.
C. Denormalize data. Meaning you write data redundantly in various places in order to get to it in as few operations as possible.
D. If you have a lot of REST requests from devices, where you do not use cookies, then switch off session support ( or roll your own as we did). Sessions use datastore under the hood and for every request it does get and put.
E. Read about adjusting app settings. Try different settings (depending how tolerant your app is to request delay and your traffic patterns/spikes). We were able to cut down frontend instances by 70%.