I'm writing a very limited-purpose web application that stores about 10-20k user-submitted articles (typically 500-700 words). At any time, any user should be able to perform searches on tags and keywords, edit any part of any article (metadata, text, or tags), or download a copy of the entire database that is recent up-to-the-hour. (It can be from a cache as long as it is updated hourly.) Activity tends to happen in a few unpredictable spikes over a day (wherein many users download the entire database simultaneously requiring 100% availability and fast downloads) and itermittent weeks of low activity. This usage pattern is set in stone.
Is GAE a wise choice for this application? It appeals to me for its low cost (hopefully free), elasticity of scale, and professional management of most of the stack. I like the idea of an app engine as an alternative to a host. However, the excessive limitations and quotas on all manner of datastore usage concern me, as does the trade-off between strong and eventual consistency imposed by the datastore's distributed architecture.
Is there a way to fit this application into GAE? Should I use the ndb API instead of the plain datastore API? Or are the requirements so data-intensive that GAE is more expensive than hosts like Webfaction?
As long as you don't require full text search on the articles (which is currently still marked as experimental and limited to ~1000 queries per day), your usage scenario sounds like it would fit just fine in App Engine.
stores about 10-20k user-submitted articles (typically 500-700 words)
Maximum entity size in App Engine is 1 MB, so as long as the total size of the article is lower than that, it should not be a problem. Also, the cost for reading data in is not tied to the size of the entity but to the number of entities being read.
At any time, any user should be able to perform searches on tags and keywords.
Again, as long as the search on the tags and keywords are not full text searches, App Engine's datastore queries could handle these kind of searches efficiently. If you want to search on both tags and keywords at the same time, you would need to build a composite index for both fields. This could increase your write cost.
download a copy of the entire database that is recent up-to-the-hour.
You could use cron/scheduled task to schedule a hourly dump to the blobstore. The cron could be targeted to a backend instance if your dump takes more than 60 seconds to be finished. Do remember that with each dump, you would need to read all entities in the database, and this means 10-20k read ops per hour. You could add a timestamp field to your entity, and have your dump servlet query for anything newer than the last dump instead to save up read ops.
Activity tends to happen in a few unpredictable spikes over a day (wherein many users download the entire database simultaneously requiring 100% availability and fast downloads) and itermittent weeks of low activity.
This is where GAE shines, you could have very efficient instance usages with GAE in this case.
I don't think your application is particularly "database-heavy".
500-700 words is only a few KB of data.
I think GAE is a good fit.
You could store each article as a textproperty on an entity, with tags in a listproperty. For searching text you could use the search service https://developers.google.com/appengine/docs/python/search/ (which currently has quota limits).
Not 100% sure about downloading all the data, but I think you could store all the data in the blobstore (possibly as pdf?) and then allow users to download that blob.
I would choose NDB over regular datastore, mostly for the built-in async functionality and caching.
Regarding staying below quota, it depends on how many people are accessing the site and how much data they download/upload.
Related
I'm building a application that need to be created using an immutable database, I know about Datomic, but's not recommended to huge data volume (my application will have thousands, or more, writes per second).
I already did some search about it and I could't find any similar database that do not have this "issue".
My application will use event sourcing and microservices pattern.
Any suggestions about what database should I use?
Greg Young's Event Store appears to fit your criteria.
Stores your data as a series of immutable events over time.
Claims to be benchmarked at 15,000 writes per second and 50,000 reads per second.
Amazon's DynamoDB can scale to meet very high TPS demands. It can certainly handle 10 to 100 of thousands of writes per second sustained if your schema is designed properly but it is not cheap.
Your question is a bit vague about whether you need to be able to sustain tens of thousands of writes per second, or you need to be able to burst to tens of thousands of writes. It's also not clear how you intend to read the data.
How big is a typical event/record?
Could you batch the writes?
Could you partition your writes?
Have you looked into something like Amazon's Kinesis Firehose? With small events you could have a relatively cheap ingestion pipeline and then perhaps use S3 for long term storage. It would certainly be cheaper than DynamoDB.
Azure offers similar services as well but I'm not as familiar with their offerings.
I am investigating what might be the best infrastructure for storing log files from many clients.
Google App engine offers a nice solution that doesn't make the process a IT nightmare: Load balancing, sharding, server, user authentication - all in once place with almost zero configuration.
However, I wonder if the Datastore model is the right for storing logs. Each log entry should be saved as a single document, where each clients uploads its document on a daily basis and can consists of 100K of log entries each day.
Plus, there are some limitation and questions that can break the requirements:
60 seconds timeout on bulk transaction - How many log entries per second will I be able to insert? If 100K won't fit into the 60 seconds frame - this will affect the design and the work that needs to be put into the server.
5 inserts per entity per seconds - Is a transaction considered a single insert?
Post analysis - text search, searching for similar log entries cross clients. How flexible and efficient is Datastore with these queries?
Real time data fetch - getting all the recent log entries.
The other option is to deploy an elasticsearch cluster on goole compute and write the server on our own which fetches data from ES.
Thanks!
Bad idea to use datastore and even worse if you use entity groups with parent/child as a comment mentions when comparing performance.
Those numbers do not apply but datastore is not at all designed for what you want.
bigquery is what you want. its designed for this specially if you later want to analyze the logs in a sql-like fashion. Any more detail requires that you ask a specific question as it seems you havent read much about either service.
I do not agree, Data Store is a totally fully managed no sql document store database, you can store the logs you want in this type of storage and you can query directly in datastore, the benefits of using this instead of BigQuery is the schemaless part, in BigQuery you have to define the schema before inserting the logs, this is not necessary if you use DataStore, think of DataStore as a MongoDB log analysis use case in Google Cloud.
Using AppEngine with Python and the HRD retrieving records sequentially (via an indexed field which is an incrementing integer timestamp) we get 15,000 records returned in 30-45 seconds. (Batching and limiting is used.) I did experiment with doing queries on two instances in parallel but still achieved the same overall throughput.
Is there a way to improve this overall number without changing any code? I'm hoping we can just pay some more and get better database throughput. (You can pay more for bigger frontends but that didn't affect database throughput.)
We will be changing our code to store multiple underlying data items in one database record, but hopefully there is a short term workaround.
Edit: These are log records being downloaded to another system. We will fix it in the future and know how to do so, but I'd rather work on more important things first.
Try splitting the records on different entity groups. That might force them to go to different physical servers. Read entity groups in parallel from multiple threads or instances.
Using cache mght not work well for large tables.
Maybe you can cache your records, like use Memcache:
https://developers.google.com/appengine/docs/python/memcache/
This could definitely speed up your application access. I don't think that App Engine Datastore is designed for speed but for scalability. Memcache however is.
BTW, if you are conscious about the performance that GAE gives as per what you pay, then maybe you can try setting up your own App Engine cloud with:
AppScale
JBoss CapeDwarf
Both have an active community support. I'm using CapeDwarf in my local environment it is still in BETA but it works.
Move to any of the in-memory databases. If you have Oracle Database, using TimesTen will improve the throughput multifold.
I'm building a system which I plan to deploy on Google App Engine. Current pricing is described here:
Google App Engine - Pricing and Features
I need an estimate of cost per client managed by the webapp. The cost won't be very accurate until I have completed the development. GAE uses such fine grained price calculation such as READs and WRITEs that it becomes a very daunting task to estimate operation cost per user.
I have an agile dev. process which leaves me even more clueless in determining my cost. I've been exploiting my users stories to create a cost baseline per user story. Then I roughly estimate how will the user execute each story workflow to finally compute a simplistic estimation.
As I see it, computing estimates for Datastore API is overly complex for a startup project. The other costs are a bit easier to grasp. Unfortunately, I need to give an approximate cost to my manager!
Has anyone undergone such a task? Any pointers would be great, regarding tools, examples, or any other related information.
Thank you.
Yes, it is possible to do cost estimate analysis for app engine applications. Based on my experience, the three major areas of cost that I encountered while doing my analysis are the instance hour cost, the datastore read/write cost, and the datastore stored data cost.
YMMV based on the type of app that you are developing, of course. If it is an intense OLTP application that handle simple-but-frequent CRUD to your data records, most of the cost would be on the datastore read/write operations, so I would suggest to start your estimate on this resource.
For datastore read/write, the cost for writing is generally much more expensive than the cost for reading the data. This is because write cost take into account not only the cost to write the entity, but also to write all the indexes associated with the entity. I would suggest you to read an article by Google about the life of a datastore write, especially the part about Apply Phase, to understand how to calculate the number of write per entity based on your data model.
To do an estimate of instance hours that you would need, the simplest approach (but not always feasible) would be to deploy a simple app to test how long would a particular request took. If this approach is undesirable, you might also base your estimate on the Google App Engine System Status page (e.g. what would be the latency for a datastore write for a particularly sized entity) to get a (very) rough picture on how long would it take to process your request.
The third major area of cost, in my opinion, is the datastore stored data cost. This would vary based on your data model, of course, but any estimate you made need to also take into account the storage that would be taken by the entity indexes. Taking a quick glance on the datastore statistic page, I think the indexes could increase the storage size between 40% to 400%, depending on how many index you have for the particular entity.
Remember that most costs are an estimation of real costs. The definite source of truth is here: https://cloud.google.com/pricing/.
A good tool to estimate your cost for Appengine is this awesome Chrome Extension: "App Engine Offline Statistics Estimator".
You can also check out the AppStats package (to infer costs from within the app via API).
Recap:
Official Appengine Pricing
AppStats for Python
AppStats for Java
Online Estimator (OSE) Chrome Extension
You can use the pricing calculator
https://cloud.google.com/products/calculator/
Here's the requirement at a very high level.
We are going to distribute desktop agents (or browser plugins) to collect certain information from tons of users (in thousands or possibly millions down the road).
These agents collect data and periodically upload it to a server app.
The server app will allow for analyzing collected data (filter, sort etc based on 4-5 attributes) and summarize in form of charts etc.
We should also be able to export some of the collected data (csv or pdf)
We are looking for an platform to host the server app. GAE seems attractive because of low administrative cost and scalability (as users base increases, the platform will handle the scale... hopefully!).
Is GAE a viable option for us?
One important consideration is that sometimes the volume of uploads from the agents can exceed 50MB per upload cycle. We will have users in places where Internet connections could be very slow too. Apparently GAE has a limit on the duration a request can last. The upload volume may cause the request (transferring data from an agent to the server) to last longer than 30 seconds. How would one handle such situation?
Thanks!
The time of the upload is not considered part of the script execution time, so no worries there.
Google App Engine is very good to perform a vast number of smaller jobs but not so much to do complex long running background jobs (because of the 30 sec limit + even smaller database connection time limit). So probably GAE would be a very good platform to GATHER the data but not for actually ANALYZING it. You probably would like to separate these two.
We went ahead an implemented the first version on GAE anyway. The experience has been very much what is described here http://www.carlosble.com/?p=719
For a proof-of-concept prototype, what we have built so far is acceptable. However, we have decided not to go with GAE (at least in its current shape) for the production version. The pains somewhat outweigh the benefits in our case.
The problems we faced were numerous. Unlike my experience dealing with J2EE stacks, when you run into an issue, many a times it is a dead end. Workarounds are very complicated and ugly, if you can find one.
By writing good prototypes one could figure out whether GAE is right for the solution being built, however, the hype is a problem. Many newcomers are going get overly excited about GAE due to its hype and end up failing badly. Because they will choose GAE for all kinds of purpose that it is not suitable for.