I am working to develop an application that needs data distributed across countries. Content will be supplied "per region", but needs to be able to be easily copied to another region. On top of this I have general information that needs to be shared and synchronized across the databases.
The organisation I work for is considering implementing this system themselves, but it feels like there should be some good solutions out there already (I am open to cloud solutions - the less my company needs to manage the better)?
This might be a vague question, but I think it is possible to answer it well.
What are my options when developing this kind of distributed data system?
Update:
Should have elaborated (but I'm not sure how much I can say given NDA). Suffice to say, I have "Content" which I need stored on some space (files). I need metadata stored about the content distributed over several nodes (that might be hosted by us or some one else) to allow fast-paced communication and regionalized differences in data. I need to control HOW data is replicated between nodes, but preferably in a standards compliant way. (Preferably not written by us)
You can try CouchDB. Its off-line replication model sounds like a good fit for geo distributed system.
Interesting question - but it would really help to get more context.
You talk about "data", which usually means something with a fairly well-defined structure, often implemented in a relational database.
You also talk about "content", which usually means something with a (much) less well-defined structure, often implemented as a document of some type. Many solutions exist for structuring "documents", e.g. file systems or web sites.
Assuming we are talking about structured data, the simplest thing to do is have single repository, accessible everywhere. Have a look at "cloud" offerings - Amazon's a good bet. Creating your own global data repository is a significant undertaking - but if you're dealing with highly confidential data, or have specific performance requirements, it may the way to go.
If neither of those options work, you're in the world of "enterprise service bus". Google it, but be careful - it's a complex field, and you really want to find someone who knows what they're doing.
Having said that, using an off the shelf ESB is many times less painful than building your own distributed data structure.
I know it's years after asking, but I was looking up the answer to the same question and it looks like Cassandra may fit the bill. Once setup, it looks and acts like other database solutions (Tables, Views, SQL, Transactions, etc.), but it can also be entirely decentralized. Each instance acts as a node in a cluster of other Cassandra nodes. They synchronize behind the scenes and if one goes down, the others pick up the slack. This makes Cassandra both highly scalable and highly fault tolerant.
Related
I'm trying to create a small web application for a "personal information manager" / wiki kind of tool where I can take notes in the form of HTML snippets (or maybe Markdown), annotate them with some https://schema.org/ microdata and store both the snippet and the metadata somewhere for querying.
My understanding so far is that most semantic data stores (triple/quad stores, or databases supporting RDF) are better suited for storing and querying mainly the metadata. So I'll probably also want some traditional store of some sort (relational, document store, key-value, or even a non-rdf graph db) where I can store the full text of each note and maybe some other bits like time of last access, user-id that owns the note, etc, and also perform traditional (non-semantic) fulltext queries.
I started looking for stores that would allow me to store both data and metadata in a single place. I found a few: Ontotext GraphDB, Stardog, MarkLogic, etc. All of these seem to do exactly what I want, but have some pretty limiting free license terms that really discourage me from studying them in depth: I prefer to study open technologies that I could potentially use on a real product.
Before digging deeper, I was wondering:
If my assumption is correct: that I'll need to use one store for the data and another for the metadata.
if there's any setup involving free/open source software that developers with experience in RDF/Sparql can recommend, given the problem I describe.
Right now I'm just leaning towards using Apache Jena for the RDF store and SPARQL queries, and something completely independent for the rest of the data (PostgreSQL most likely).
Before digging deeper, I was wondering:
If my assumption is correct: that I'll need to use one store for the data and another for the metadata.
Not necessarily, no, though there certainly are some cases in which that distinction may be useful. But most RDF databases offer scalable storage for both data and metadata. The only requirement is that your (meta)data is represented as RDF. If you're worried about performance of things like text queries, most of them offer support for full-text indexing through Lucene, Solr, or Elasticsearch.
if there's any setup involving free/open source software that developers with experience in RDF/Sparql can recommend, given the problem I describe.
This is really not the right place to ask this question. Tool recommendations are considered off-topic on StackOverflow since they attract biased answers. But as said, there's plenty of tools, both open-source/free and commercial, that you can look into. I suggest you pick one you like the look of, experiment a bit, and perhaps talk to that particular tool's community to explain what you're trying to do. Apache Jena and Eclipse Rdf4j are two popular open-source projects, but there's plenty of others.
I want to start a big cakePHP project where performance will be an issue. I will have a users table with act as tree behavior and many financial data related to the users. This application will make a lot of dynamic reports aggregating data for different tree nodes etc.
Since there is on github an easy to use library which sets data source of model to redis, I was wondering if it's a good idea to use it for entire app? Is there anyone who has experience with it, and what could be potential problems if I decide to depend on redis as main/only data storage?
EDIT: I have installed redis and Tried to use RedisModel for two models with simple relation HasMany/BelongsTo. When I tried to simply use those models like standard AppModels - it simply wont work (Redis Error: Missing key). Apparently you can't use Model->find Model->save etc. in standard way. You have to use redis methods instead (setKeyValue ect.). This means that pagination and other cakePHP futures will also not work. So maybe it is not the best idea to use redisModel for all my models...
I cannot speak for CakePHP specifically, but I'll talk about redis in general and the points of your question in particular, it should be applicable to your framework of choice in the end. Let's see:
You mention you want to start an application where performance will be an issue — I just wanted to mention you should be careful with the assumption that you will need a nosql solution, because this is hard to assess beforehand. Redis is hella fast, but MySQL for instance has been proven to be capable to handling millions of records and operations just fine, provided it's properly configured and used, and it's much simpler if you need lots of relational structures.
Concerning Redis as the main and only data store:
Redis is perfectly stable for the job. Instagram
reportedly stored 300 million key-value pairs pseudo-sharded
using hashes to great effect, and while it's not the only data
storage system they use, it goes to show redis is pretty reliable.
This very site (Stack Overflow) uses redis also extensively for
caching purposes.
Redis is also reported to have an overall excellent continuous uptime on average (which shouldn't be surprising considering the point above)
Options exists to mitigate downtime issues, replication is supported to some extent, and Redis Cluster is coming soon to support proper distributed approaches.
The main problem you could face is not understanding properly how its
persistence works. You should absolutely read this and this article before you get started because this point is important. In a nutshell, redis does not write changes immediately to disk, which means that depending on your configuration, a crash can cause a data loss ranging from a few seconds to several minutes since the last disk write. This might or might not be a problem depending on your use case; if the data is extremely sensitive (ie, financial records) you might want to think twice before jumping to redis, or build a system where redis is not exclusively used but rather combined with another storage system.
Relational structures in a non-relational data store like redis mean doing more work and often duplicating/denormalizing data. It can be done, but it's something to consider; in your question you mention you'll need to aggregate data to generate dynamic reports, are you sure you want to use redis for this? it sounds like a relational database would give you way more flexibility at a very small cost of performance. If you know in advance you'll need to run complex queries over your data, it could be a good idea not to reinvent the wheel unless you absolutely need to.
My advice here would be to first get a better feeling on what redis is and how works, potentially build your own models instead of relying on others to better understand what can and cannot be done, and from there assess where you want to take it. Redis is reliable enough to be used standalone, but at the end of the day what's smart is to use the right tool for the right job, and you might find some things of your app work well with redis while some others are better off to a more traditional storage system.
I'm investigating a new project which will be a social networking style site. I'm reading up on RavenDb and I like the look of a lot of its features. I've not read up on nosql all that much but I'm wondering if there's a niche it fits best with and old school sql is still the best choice for other stuff.
I'm thinking that the permissions plug in would be ideal for a social net style site - but will it really perform in an environment where the database will be getting hammered - or is it optimised for a more reporting style system where it's possible to keep throwing new data structures at the database and report on those structures.
I'm eager to use the right tool for the job - I'll be using MVC3, Windsor + either Nhibernate+Sql server or RavenDb.
Should I stick with the old school sql or go with the new kid on the block: ravendb?
This question can get very close to being subjective (even though it's really not), you're talking about NoSQL as if it is just one thing, and that is not the case.
You have
graph databases (Neo4j etc),
map/reduce style document databases (Couch,Raven),
document databases which attempt to feel like ordinary databases (Mongo),
Key/value stores (Cassandra etc)
moar goes here.
Each of them attempts to solve a different problem via different means, and whether you'd use one of them over a traditional relational store is
A matter of suitability
A matter of personal preference
At the end of the day, for the primary data-storage for a single system, a document database or relational store is probably what you want, although for different parts of your system you may well end up utilising a graph database (For calculating neighbours etc), or a key/value store (like Facebook does/did for inbox messages).
The main benefit of choosing a document store as your primary store over that of a relational one, is that you haven't got to worry about trying to map your objects into a collection of tables, and there is less configuration overhead involved in doing so.
The other downside/upside would be that you have to learn something new and make mistakes along the way.
So my answer if I am going to be direct?
RavenDB would be suitable
SQL would be suitable
Which do you prefer to use? These days I'd probably just go for Raven, knowing I can dump data into a relational store for reporting purposes and probably do likewise for other parts of my system, and getting free-text search and fastish-writes/fast-reads without going through the effort of defining separate read/write stores is an overall win.
But that's me, and I am biased.
While computer programming evangelists predicting the future of Cloud Computing to be very bright, is there a chance for relational databases to be on their way out?
What are the DBs that are more suitable for Cloud Computing?
Here's a good article that may answer some of your questions. It features a good comparison between RDBMS systems and the ones usually used for cloud storage infrastructure:
http://www.readwriteweb.com/enterprise/2009/02/is-the-relational-database-doomed.php
The relational database model has a firm mathematical basis in relational algebra. This makes it easy to reason about, to extend, and to use properly (in theory). Even if database access patterns change significantly as a result of these new APIs and uses, it's likely that a relational database will form the underlying implementation for this reason.
No, RDBMSs will always have a place because of their functionality. Not just on their own, but also as backbones to other systems (like OODBMSs).
Relational databases are still relevant, both for localized storage (such as application-specific storage) and for server storage.
The cloud computing platforms that I've seen each have a relational database offering. So, I don't see cloud computing really changing the picture in reference to database types being used.
However, something will eventually replace the databases that we're all used to. The question is whether that will be a higher-level version of RDBs or something different. Another aspect of that question is how long will it take for the current crop of RDBs to fade out? (I don't have an answer for either.)
Clouds go poof still these days, so I don't think so anytime soon.
I don't think that cloud computing will kill RDBMSs. Something else might though.
First, what type of storage engine a given application uses does not (or should not) depend on where it is running (the cloud or a specific server), but rather on how it needs to store the data.
Second, as far as I can tell the only reason people think RDBMSs are on their way out is because they don't scale as well as non-relational DBMSs (such as document-oriented DBMSs like CouchDB) which can more easily be distributed into the cloud. However, there is no reason that RDBMSs cannot become more cloud-friendly in the future. As an early example, look at Drizzle:
The Drizzle project is building a database optimized for Cloud and Net applications. It is being designed for massive concurrency on modern multi-cpu/core architecture.
So no, I don't think that cloud computing will kill RDBMSs. They will just be forced to adapt. What might kill them, however, is if an existing alternative, or a new one, becomes as robust and easy to use as RDBMSs. What I mean is a solution that has both completely solid software (betas not allowed) and is easy for programmers to switch to. They give out degrees to people who understand RDBMSs. Because of all the assisting software (such as ORMs like ActiveRecord, SQLAlchemy, and whatever the .NET folk use I'm assuming), using RDBMSs has become easy even for people who don't know what the first normal form is. So I think that until there is a way for people to use (for instance) a DODBMS just as easily, RDBMSs will continue to dominate. I'm also not saying that is necessarily bad. Again, which DBMS you use should depend on your data, not what people say is cool and better.
A quote from the article :
"The inherent constraints of a relational database ensure that data at the lowest level have integrity. Data that violate integrity constraints cannot physically be entered into the database. These constraints don't exist in a key/value database, so the responsibility for ensuring data integrity falls entirely to the application. But application code often carries bugs. Bugs in a properly designed relational database usually don't lead to data integrity issues; bugs in a key/value database, however, quite easily lead to data integrity issues."
What this means to me is that RDBMS's are doomed, and hotshot new technologies are facing a great and brilliant future, to the same extent that users aren't anywhere near interested in the correctness of their data.
IMHO.
There's nothing wrong with relational databases for applications that need to query more structured data (e.g., "How many people bought product XYZ, on this date, paid more than $100, but less than $150?"). There are potentially significant architectural issues that will need to be addressed as these systems scale and grow. Once your DB outgrows the one machine you started on and/or traffic/requests begin to overload available resources, then (if you still want to keep your relational database) you have to start adding layers. Thankfully today, there are many more options available then in previous years... including caching, map and reduce, and other functionality - but these add-on layers do add complexity and maintenance overhead. In one sense I'd consider these engineered "band-aids" which will most likely solve the scalability and distribution problems with a relational DB today, but longer term? Who knows. I also see these popular layers today - all of which are basically trying to emulate functionality already available in object DBs, giving developers a "virtual object DB" layer that they can use with their object languages to do things faster and more efficiently, and get past the growth and performance obstacles. So I guess my overall opinion is, relational DBs became the defacto DB probably mostly due to how (relatively) easy it was to query a database, and get results back to the one client/app using it. As volumes have grown though, and application complexity is exponentially greater today, I think more developers will decide to bite the bullet, learn the syntax for object DBs (which is actually about as standardized today as relational DBs), and just skip all the middleware and layers that only emulate functionality that one could get natively in an OODBMS. I've seen OODBs that simply get installed on any number of servers, and automatically distributing data as needed, and giving the developer a single view of any size federation of databases... Seems to me the best solution as systems become more distributed, to get a DB that can has native distributed architecture. Anyway, just a thought.
When dealing with small projects, what do you feel is the break even point for storing data in simple text files, hash tables, etc., versus using a real database? For small projects with simple data management requirements, a real database is unnecessary complexity and violates YAGNI. However, at some point the complexity of a database is obviously worth it. What are some signs that your problem is too complex for simple ad-hoc techniques and needs a real database?
Note: To people used to enterprise environments, this will probably sound like a weird question. However, my problem domain is bioinformatics. Most of my programming is prototypes, not production code. I'm primarily a domain expert and secondarily a programmer. Most of my code is algorithm-centric, not data management-centric. The purpose of this question is largely for me to figure out how much work I might save in the long run if I learn to use proper databases in my code instead of the more ad-hoc techniques I typically use.
1) Concurrency. Do you have multiple people accessing the same dataset? Then it's going to get pretty involved to broker all of the different readers and writers in a scalable fashion if you roll your own system.
2) Formatting and relationships: Is your data something that doesn't fit neatly into a table structure? Long nucleotide sequences and stuff like that? That's not really conveniently tabular data.
Another example: Nobody would consider implementing software like Photoshop to store PSDs in a relational format, because the data structures don't really lend themselves to that type of storage or query pattern.
3) ACID (sort of a corollary to #1): If Atomicity, Consistency, Integrity, and Durability are not challenges with a flat file, then go with a flat file.
For me, the line is crossed once I have to query my data in ways that involve more than a single relationship. Relating two flat data structures on disk is fairly simple, but once we get beyond that, a set-based language like SQL and formal database relationships actually reduce complexity.
I think at some point you'll miss the querying capabilities of a database, but you can consider some minimalistic database alternatives:
SQLite (Great, almost SQL-92 standard compliant)
shsql
SQL Server Compact
I would only write my own on-disk format under very special circumstances. Reusing someone else's code is nearly always faster.
For relational data, I would use SQLite. For key/value pairs, I would use BerkeleyDB (perhaps via KiokuDB). For simple objects, I would use JSON or YAML, but only if I only had a few.
With SQLite and BDB, "a real database" is literally two lines of code away. It is hard to beat that.
The problem with small projects is that they become bigger before we know it. And once they do , we start missing the sql capabilities.
Always design such that a db can be utilized later on if required without ripping apart half of the application.
It depends entirely on the domain-specific application needs. A lot of times direct text file/binary files access can be extremely fast, efficient, as well as providing you all the file access capabilities of your OS's file system.
Furthermore, your programming language most likely already has a built-in module (or is easy to make one) for specific parsing.
If what you need is many appends (INSERTS?) and sequential/few access little/no concurrency, files are the way to go.
On the other hand, when your requirements for concurrency, non-sequential reading/writing, atomicity, atomic permissions, your data is relational by the nature etc., you will be better off with a relational or OO database.
There is a lot that can be accomplished with SQLite3, which is extremely light (under 300kb), ACID compliant, written in C/C++, and highly ubiquitous (if it isn't already included in your programming language -for example Python-, there is surely one available). It can be useful even on db files as big as 1GB, possible more.
If your requirements where bigger, there wouldn't even be a discussion, go for a full-blown RDBMS.
For the kind of applications you are developing in bioinformatics, you are often doing one-shot applications (often scripts that define a workflow of calculations) that answer a specific questions, and you are not likely to be reusing these applications after you answered your question.
Often, you should therefore avoid creating databases to store the results, as after all you are not going to use their features very much.
You will probably be querying some webservices, files, or databases, run some local algorithms on the data gathered from different sources, and produce some tabular or structured output format (xml, json, etc).
For that, I would suggest you to use workflow tools like Knime (or a commercial solution like Inforsense KDE, Accelrys's Pipeline pilot, or Snaplogic, as they allow you to query data in a variety of formats and locations (rdbms, flat files, webservices), run algorithms, and build powerful web apps that allow you to easily publish your workflows to your users and let them interact at specific points).
If your prototype "grows" and you have to build more functionality on top of the data your workflows output, and if the output of your prototype is not likely to change everyday, then it's a wise decision to store a subset of the results in a database. This allows you to plug in powerful reporting tools like BusinessObjects, Crystal reports, jasper reports or whatever reporting solution available out there and show data to your users in a better shape than a spreadsheet or a csv file.
Finally, some development frameworks will make your choices more obvious : if you build a web application using an MVC framework, it is likely that your data will reside in an RDBMS (but please, don't put genomic sequences in a table column :-)).
All in all, it's a case by case choice, depending on your needs for each particular application.
In software I can usually get away with storing values in a XML configuration file or in the registry, e.g. software options. Once I need to persist objects I move to a database because the upfront cost is not that bad compared to the long term effects that relations and reporting can offer.
For bioinformatics you may be interested on that: Blast on DB. The guy who is working on that is a friend of mine and has a work on fast similarity sequence search, he found out to make his own binary storage better than using databases at this point.
I don't know specific details about his solution but you probably can exchange one or two ideias mailing the guy, even sharing code.
Do you need/want SQL queries?
Are multiple people going to want to access the data?
Is your data relational?
If you answered no to those questions, you (probably) don't need a full on database.
First, I'd consider:
How large will the database initially be: # of tables, # of rows
How quickly will it grow?
Is the data frequently queried?
If I were to create a personal recipe app, for example, I know I might add 50 favorite recipes to start and add no more than 5 recipes a year. With that being said, I could easily get by without a database since the size of the data store will have minimal impact on queries.
That said, I would probably use a database for any application where data entry and queries occur (even a small personal recipe app). I don't think it adds a lot of overhead especially when your framework (e.g. Rails) allows you to keep your database dumb (primarily tables, indexes, and constraints). It alleviates the chance that I'll have to eventually port to a database if I decide to scale up.
If you know the format of your data, flat files, if faster/easier to develop with, will be fine. If you expect your record formats to change frequently during development then I'd suggest that ALTER TABLE is your friend. Flat files will also tend to be faster (if you care about speed) unless you expect to implement the equivalent of joins across many combinations of files.
The real benefit of using a RDBMS during development is the flexibility with which you can modify your data schema and the ease with which you can access your data via queries.
Good design will ensure that you keep your data access layer relatively isolated (because of separation of concerns) so it should be a fairly straightforward (if tedious) matter to rework to a database later should it be worthwhile. Or, of course, if you use a database to develop your structures you may subsequently take the app back to flat/indexed files once those structures are crystallized in order to gain performance.
Use whatever persistence technology you're most comfortable with, and scales sufficiently.
YAGNI at least means "Don't add a new technology to your personal stack unless you can't be productive with whatever is already there."
For many (most?) of us, our comfort zone for data persistence is SQL. For some, it might be XML. Just don't write your own until (see paragraph 2).
As someone also doing research in Bioinformatics, I would suggest NOT using a database for these kinds of prototype projects unless you are sure it needs it. If you are on the fence, go with the databaseless solution and stick with flat files. It is also important to note that traditionally Bioinformatics researchers have go the flat file route, which means there are well defined file formats for most types of data in the feild. If you decide to go with a database solution, it may hurt your compatibility with existing research projects.