I've been cracking my head this week over a problem I have with my applications at work.
I made a few apps that run on multiple computers and read/write data from a network drive.
The data is usually just a few kilobytes in size and changes every few seconds, so I thought text files were the easiest and fastest way to do it.
The problem is that the data (or text files) often gets, corrupt?
While some computers show the correct data, others will show older data (usually from a few minutes before) or don't show anything at all. When checking the contents of the text files on multiple computers they often show different data even though it is the same file on the network drive.
Could it be that the file gets corrupted because multiple instances are writing and reading data at a fast pace to the same file?
The problem is easily fixed by deleting/re-creating the files or move them to another folder, but it is a real pain to do this every now and then.
Setting up an SQL server is not the solution for now because I'm still waiting for permission.
Maybe I should try SQLite or any other type of database for now?
Or maybe there is an easier fix to get rid of this problem, anyone had this problem before?
Related
I want to securely delete my context of my SSD hard disk. I had a look on sdelete but i realized that file names are not deleted or overwrited.
Is there any free tool that i can achieve the above?
Thank you
I'm not sure if you want to delete permanently or secure delete from the drive and cannot be recovered anymore.
So, these are the two ways:
Delete permanently: in Windows Explorer, you can select the file and type "shift + del" on the keyboard. This way the file'll not be moved to your recycle bin;
Secure delete: When you delete a file from a HDD, the sector of the disk is marked as unused and not really erased. So, you need a software to replace these sector with "nothing" and avoid others user can recovery your deleted files using others softwares. One very good software is ERASER, that have one very good method to total erase the file from the disk, called "Gutmann standard": it´s overwrite the deleted files 35 times. Yes, there are softwares that keep trying to read the same sectors on the disk severall times.
But, as your case, the disk is a SSD, the only way to secure erase the file, really destroying all the data, is reformating it.
An alternative to this bad solution, preventing this situation, is enabling file-drive encryption. This option is already available on Windows 10.
Obs: of course, the file that you want to delete, can't be in using.
Erasing an SSD is not that easy because SSDs are more like mini-computers with an own OS only showing you only some of the data saved in it's flash chips. Als wear-leveling algorithms and overprovisioning makes secure deleting on user level next to impossible.
As far as I know there is only one solution to securely delete data on an SSD (without destroying the SSD):
Perform the Secure Erase Command using a SSD software - usually provided by the SD manufacturer itself.
It deletes and recreates the internal encryption key which makes all the data unreadable that is stored on the SSD.
Note that the secure erase command is not supported by every SSD.
I have an application that uses a SQL FILESTREAM to store images. I insert a LOT of images (several millions images per days).
After a while, the machine stops responding and seem to be out of memory... Looking at the memory usage of the PC, we don't see any process taking a lot of memory (neither SQL or our application). We tried to kill our process and it didn't restore our machine... We then kill the SQL services and it didn't not restore to system. As a last resort, we even killed all processes (except the system ones) and the memory still remained high (we are looking in the task manager's performance tab). Only a reboot does the job at that point. We have tried on Win7, WinXP, Win2K3 server with always the same results.
Unfortunately, this isn't a one-shot deal, it happens every time.
Has anybody seen that kind of behaviour before? Are we doing something wrong using the SQL FILESTREAMS?
You say you insert a lot of images per day. What else do you do with the images? Do you update them, many reads?
Is your file system optimized for FILESTREAMs?
How do you read out the images?
If you do a lot of updates, remember that SQL Server will not modify the filestream object but create a new one and mark the old for deletion by the garbage collector. At some time the GC will trigger and start cleaning up the old mess. The problem with FILESTREAM is that it doesn't log a lot to the transaction log and thus the GC can be seriously delayed. If this is the problem it might be solved by forcing GC more often to maintain responsiveness. This can be done using the CHECKPOINT statement.
UPDATE: You shouldn't use FILESTREAM for small files (less than 1 MB). Millions of small files will cause problems for the filesystem and the Master File Table. Use varbinary in stead. See also Designing and implementing FILESTREAM storage
UPDATE 2: If you still insist on using the FILESTREAM for storage (you shouldn't for large amounts of small files), you must at least configure the file system accordingly.
Optimize the file system for large amount of small files (use these as tips and make sure you understand what they do before you apply)
Change the Master File Table
reservation to maximum in registry (FSUTIL.exe behavior set mftzone 4)
Disable 8.3 file names (fsutil.exe behavior set disable8dot3 1)
Disable last access update(fsutil.exe behavior set disablelastaccess 1)
Reboot and create a new partition
Format the storage volumes using a
block size that will fit most of the
files (2k or 4k depending on you
image files).
I want to log visits to my website with a high visits rate to file. How much writes to log file can I perform per second?
If you can't use Analytics, why wouldn't you use your webserver's existing logging system? If you are using a real webserver, it almost certainly as a logging mechanism that is already optimized for maximum throughput.
Your question is impossible to answer in all other respects. The number of possible writes is governed by hardware, operating system and contention from other running software.
Don't do that, use Google Analytics instead. You'd end up running into many problems trying to open files, write to them, close them, so on and so forth. Problems would arise when you overwrite data that hasn't yet been committed, etc.
If you need your own local solution (within a private network, etc) you can look into an option like AWStats which operates off of crawling through your log files.
Or just analyze the Apache access log files. For example with AWStats.
File writes are not expensive until you actually flush the data to disk. Usually your operating system will cache things aggressively so you can have very good write performance if you don't try to fsync() your data manually (but of course you might lose the latest log entries if there's a crash).
Another problem however is that file I/O is not necessarily thread-safe, and writing to the same file from multiple threads or processes (which will probably happen if we're talking about a Web app) might produce the wrong results: missing or duplicate or intermingled log lines, for example.
If your hard disk drive can write 40 MB/s and your log file lines are approx. 300 bytes in length, I'd assume that you can write 140000 HTTP requests per second to your logfile if you keep it open.
Anyway, you should not do that on your own, since most web servers already write to logfiles and they know very good how to do that, how to roll the files if a maximum limit is reached and how to format the log lines according to some well-known patterns.
File access is very expensive, especially when doing writes. I would recommend saving them to RAM (using whatever cache method suits you best) and periodically writing the results to disk.
You could also use a database for this. Something like:
UPDATE stats SET hits = hits + 1
Try out a couple different solutions, benchmark the performance, and implement whichever works fast enough with minimal resource usage.
If using Apache, I'd recommend using the rotatelogs utility supplied as a part of the standard kit.
We use this to allow rotating the server logs out on a daily basis without having to stop and start the server. N.B. Use the new "||" syntax when declaring the log directive.
The site I'm involved with is one of the largest on the Internet with hit rates peaking in the millions per second for extended periods of time.
Edit: I forgot to say that the site uses standard Apache logging directives and we have not needed to customise the Apache logging code at all.
Edit: BTW Unless you really need it, don't log bytes served as this causes all sorts of issues around the midnight boundary.
Let Apache do it; do the analysis work on the back-end.
I have an existing database containing some pictures in blob fields. For a web application I have to display them.
What's the best way to do that, considering stress on the server and maintenance and coding efforts.
I can think of the following:
"Cache" the blobs to external files and send the files to the browser.
Read them from directly the database every time it's requested.
Some additionals facts:
I cannot change the database and get rid of the blobs alltogether and only save file references in the database (Like in the good ol' Access days), because the database is used by another application which actually requires the blobs.
The images change rarely, i.e. if an image is in the database it mostly stays that way forever.
There'll be many read accesses to the pictures, 10-100 pictures per view will be displayed. (Depending on the user's settings)
The pictures are relativly small, < 500 KB
I would suggest a combination of the two ideas of yours: The first time the item is requested read it from the database. But afterwards make sure they are cached by something like Squid so you don't have to retrieve the every time they are requested.
one improtant thing is to use proper HTTP cache control ... that is, setting expiration dates properly, responding to HEAD requests correctly (not all plattforms/webservers allow that) ...
caching thos blobs to the file system makes sense to me ... even more so, if the DB is running on another server ... but even if not, i think a simple file access is a lot cheaper, than piping the data through a local socket ... if you did cache the DB to the file system, you could most probably configure any webserver to do a good cache control for you ... if it's not the case already, you should maybe request, that there is a field to indicate the last update of the image, to make your cache more efficient ...
greetz
back2dos
I'd like advice on the following design. Is it reasonable? Is it stupid/insane?
Requirements:
We have some distributed calculations that work on chunks of data that are sometimes up to 50Mb in size.
Because the calculations take a long time, we like to parallelize the calculations on a small grid (around 20 nodes)
We "produce" around 10000 of these "chunks" of binary data each day - and want to keep them around for up to a year... Most of the items aren't 50Mb in size though, so the total daily space requirement is more around 5Gb... But we'd like to keep stuff around for as long as possible, (a year or more)... But hey, you can get 2TB hard disks nowadays.
Although we'd like to keep the data around, this is essentially a "cache". It's not the end of the world if we lose data - it just has to get recalculated, which just takes some time (an hour or two).
We need to be able to efficiently get a list of all "chunks" that were produced on a particular day.
We often need to, from a support point of view, delete all chunks created on a particular day or remove all chunks created within the last hour.
We're a Windows shop - we can't easily switch to Linux/some other OS.
We use SQLServer for existing database requirements.
However, it's a large and reasonably bureaucratic company that has some policies that limit our options: for example, conventional database space using SQLServer is charged internally at extremely expensive prices. Allocating 2 terabytes of SQL Server space is prohibitively expensive. This is mainly because our SQLServer instances are backed up, archived for 7 years, etc. etc. But we don't need this "gold-plated" functionality because we can just recreate the stuff if it goes missing. At heart, it's just a cache, that can be recreated on demand.
Running our own SQLServer instance on a machine that we maintain is not allowed (all SQLServer instances must be managed by a separate group).
We do have fairly small transactional requirement: if a process that was producing a chunk dies halfway through, we'd like to be able to detect such "failed" transactions.
I'm thinking of the following solution, mainly because it seems like it would be very simple to implement:
We run a web server on top of a windows filesystem (NTFS)
Clients "save" and "load" files by using HTTP requests, and when processes need to send blobs to each other, they just pass the URLs.
Filenames are allocated using GUIDS - but have a directory for each date. So all of the files created on 12th November 2010 would go in a directory called "20101112" or something like that. This way, by getting a "directory" for a date we can find all of the files produced for that date using normal file copy operations.
Indexing is done by a traditional SQL Server table, with a "URL" column instead of a "varbinary(max)" column.
To preserve the transactional requirement, a process that is creating a blob only inserts the corresponding "index" row into the SQL Server table after it has successfully finished uploading the file to the web server. So if it fails or crashes halfway, such a file "doesn't exist" yet because the corresponding row used to find it does not exist in the SQL server table(s).
I like the fact that the large chunks of data can be produced and consumed over a TCP socket.
In summary, we implement "blobs" on top of SQL Server much the same way that they are implemented internally - but in a way that does not use very much actual space on an actual SQL server instance.
So my questions are:
Does this sound reasonable. Is it insane?
How well do you think that would work on top of a typical windows NT filesystem? - (5000 files per "dated" directory, several hundred directories, one for each day). There would eventually be many hundreds of thousands of files, (but not too many directly underneath any one particular directory). Would we start to have to worry about hard disk fragmentation etc?
What about if 20 processes are all, via the one web server, trying to write 20 different "chunks" at the same time - would that start thrashing the disk?
What web server would be the best to use? It needs to be rock solid, runs on windows, able to handle lots of concurrent users.
As you might have guessed, outside of the corporate limitations, I would probably set up a SQLServer instance and just have a table with a "varbinary(max)" column... But given that is not an option, how well do you think this would work?
This is all somewhat out of my usual scope so I freely admit I'm a bit of a Noob in this department. Maybe this is an appalling design... but it seems like it would be very simple to understand how it works, and to maintain and support it.
Your reasons behind the design are insane, but they're not yours :)
NTFS can handle what you're trying to do. This shouldn't be much of a problem. Yes, you might eventually have fragmentation problems if you run low on disk space, but make sure that you have copious amounts of space and you shouldn't have a problem. If you're a Windows shop, just use IIS.
I really don't think you will have much of a problem with this architecture. Just keep it simple like you're doing and things should be fine.