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.
Related
I have a background in web programming where both the data and the code live on the server. Web hosts with mysql or the like are plentiful and cheap so using the application from multiple pcs was never a problem.
However I'm considering switching to building desktop applications but the only factor that annoys me is the syncing of data across the many pcs I use. I was thinking of perhaps setting up a light amazon ec2 instance with a postgresql on it and having my desktop applications use that.
I have a few questions:
I'm curious as to what latency I might expect by running the database on ec2 instead of the local network, any experience or insight is appreciated.
Are there better/more obvious/cheaper solutions?
I've looked at the pricing and it seems to come down to 24.48$ per month for a yearly contract. Whilst not really expensive, it is not exactly cheap either. At what point does it become more interesting to run a local server?
I'm obviously not using my applications for large parts of the day (sleep, work,...). I was wondering if I can have the amazon server go into a sort of "sleep" mode and wake up when poked. An initial delay for the first desktop application is acceptable. The reason behind this behavior would be to save money on the instance if it is only actually needed for 10% of the day.
I welcome any feedback at all on how this problem is best tackled.
This could get ugly. Every single query you do will have latency associated with it. If you have a lot of queries, this can add up very fast. So keep your query count low, and try to pre-fetch and cache data when possible.
Not enough information to answer that question.
Depends on the cost of your local server. Keep in mind that you will need to pay for electricity to keep it on.
You can stop your instance when you are not needing it, with the exception of high utilization reservations, you wont get billed when its in stopped state. With high utilization reservations you will still pay the full cost.
I developed an application for client that uses Play framework 1.x and runs on GAE. The app works great, but sometimes is crazy slow. It takes around 30 seconds to load simple page but sometimes it runs faster - no code change whatsoever.
Are there any way to identify why it's running slow? I tried to contact support but I couldnt find any telephone number or email. Also there is no response on official google group.
How would you approach this problem? Currently my customer is very angry because of slow loading time, but switching to other provider is last option at the moment.
Use GAE Appstats to profile your remote procedure calls. All of the RPCs are slow (Google Cloud Storage, Google Cloud SQL, ...), so if you can reduce the amount of RPCs or can use some caching datastructures, use them -> your application will be much faster. But you can see with appstats which parts are slow and if they need attention :) .
For example, I've created a Google Cloud Storage cache for my application and decreased execution time from 2 minutes to under 30 seconds. The RPCs are a bottleneck in the GAE.
Google does not usually provide a contact support for a lot of services. The issue described about google app engine slowness is probably caused by a cold start. Google app engine front-end instances sleep after about 15 minutes. You could write a cron job to ping instances every 14 minutes to keep the nodes up.
Combining some answers and adding a few things to check:
Debug using app stats. Look for "staircase" situations and RPC calls. Maybe something in your app is triggering RPC calls at certain points that don't happen in your logic all the time.
Tweak your instance settings. Add some permanent/resident instances and see if that makes a difference. If you are spinning up new instances, things will be slow, for probably around the time frame (30 seconds or more) you describe. It will seem random. It's not just how many instances, but what combinations of the sliders you are using (you can actually hurt yourself with too little/many).
Look at your app itself. Are you doing lots of memory allocations in the JVM? Allocating/freeing memory is inherently a slow operation and can cause freezes. Are you sure your freezing is not a JVM issue? Try replicating the problem locally and tweak the JVM xmx and xms settings and see if you find similar behavior. Also profile your application locally for memory/performance issues. You can cut down on allocations using pooling, DI containers, etc.
Are you running any sort of cron jobs/processing on your front-end servers? Try to move as much as you can to background tasks such as sending emails. The intervals may seem random, but it can be a result of things happening depending on your job settings. 9 am every day may not mean what you think depending on the cron/task options. A corollary - move things to back-end servers and pull queues.
It's tough to give you a good answer without more information. The best someone here can do is give you a starting point, which pretty much every answer here already has.
By making at least one instance permanent, you get a great improvement in the first use. It takes about 15 sec. to load the application in the instance, which is why you experience long request times, when nobody has been using the application for a while
I have an idea for a web application and I am currently researching different platforms. I am really interested in Google App Engine, but it looks like it works pretty good for certain application types while it is less suitable for others (there are horror as well as success stories e.g. Goodbye Google App Engine vs. Why we are really happy with Google App Engine
There is also a similar negative story in this thread from 1 year ago, concluding GAE was not ready for commercial production platform: GAE as Production Platform. There are also other threads from 2009 talking about data select limits (1000 rows) that has since been lifted.
My app will essentially perform some mathematical analysis based on data pulled from external data feeds (could be some substantial amount of data), it would be real time only the first time data is downloaded for a specific item at hand and then stored and retrieved locally from the database at that point. There will be some additional external data pulls as scheduled intervals.
Based on this brief description, should I even bother starting on GAE? In general, what are the rules of thumb to try and decide if developing on GAE is suitable for a problem at hand? Also, what are the good examples of Apps in Production that use GAE. It looks like GAE App Gallery is not around anymore, but I would definitely appreciate any Web 2.0 App examples running on the app engine.
In your specific case I would double check these factors:
a. Is the mathematical analysis a long running CPU intensive job?
GAE is not designed for long running CPU intensive computational Jobs; this would lead to have an high billing cost and would force you to design your application to avoid some GAE limitations (10 minutes max per job, limited soft memory, CPU quota, etc. etc.).
b. Are you planning to retrieve external data using a mainstream API (twitter, yahoo, facebook)?
Your application shares the same pool of IPs with other applications; if the API you want to adopt does not allow authenticated request, your application will suffer hiccups caused by throttling/quota limits errors. I faced this problem here.
App Engine should work fine for your application. It's generally designed to serve, and to scale, sites that serve mostly user-facing traffic. Applications that it's not suitable for are things such as video transcoding, which rely heavily on backend processing, or things that have to shell out to native code, such as 3D graphics, etcetera.
Depends on what type of mathematical analysis are you doing. If your application is heavy in I/O, I would give it some pause. On GAE, you're kind of limited in your I/O options. You basically have the following:
RAM: I can't recall exactly, but GAE imposes a hard limit of around 200MB of RAM.
Datastore: You get plenty of space here, but it's slow compared to a cached local file system.
Memcache: Faster than datastore, but not nearly as fast as a cached disk. And worse, it's a cache, so there's no guarantee that it won't get wiped out.
External sources: These include calling out to external web-pages. Lots of flexibility, but very slow.
In sum, I would perhaps look at other options if you're doing heavy I/O on a medium-size dataset (>20MB and ~<2GB). These are probably non-issues for 90% of web-apps, although you should be aware of them.
All the negatives aside, working on GAE is a joyous experience. You spend more time programming and less time configuring. And it's really cheap.
There have been quite a few occasions recently when app engine appears to run slower. To some degree that's understandable with the architecture of their cloud platform. I'm not talking about new server instances - just requests to warm servers. I'm also just referring to CPU, not datastore API, but I do wonder about that as well.
It seems that during these slow periods I get a lot more yellow warnings on my requests - saying I am using a lot of CPU. Certainly they take longer to complete during this period. What concerns me is that during these slow periods, my billable CPU seems to go up.
So to be clear - when app engine is fast, a request might complete in 100ms. In a slow period, it might take more than 1s for the same request. Same URI, same caching, same processing path, same datastore, same indexes - much more CPU. The yellow warnings, as I understand it, are referring to billable CPU usage, and there's many more of them when app engine is slower.
This seems to set up a bizarre situation where my app costs more to run when app engine performance is worse. This means google makes more money the more poorly the platform performs (up to the point where it fails or customers leave). Maybe I've got the situation all wrong, and it doesn't work like that - but if it does work like that, then as a customer the pressures and balances there are all wrong. That's not intimating any wrong-doing on google's part - just that the relationships between those two things don't seem right.
It almost seems like google's algorithm goes something like - 'If I give a processing job to a CPU and start my watch, then stop it when the job returns I get the billable CPU figure.' i.e. it doesn't measure CPU work at all. Surely that time should be divided by the number of processing jobs being concurrently executed plus some extra to cover the additional context switching. I'm sure that stuff is hard to measure - perhaps that's the reason.
I guess you could argue it is fair that you pay more when app engine is in high demand, but that makes budgeting close to impossible - you can't generate stats like '100 users costs me $1 a day', because that could change for a whole host of reasons - including app engine onboarding more customers than the infrastructure can realistically handle. If google over-subscribes app engine then all customers pay more - it's another relationship that doesn't sound right. Surely google's costs should go down as they onboard more customers, and those customers use more resources - based on economies of scale.
Should I expect two identical requests in my app to cost me roughly the same amount each time they run - regardless of how much wall-time app engine takes to actually complete them? Have I misunderstood how this works? If I haven't, is there a reason why I shouldn't be worried about it in the long term? Is there some documentation which makes this situation clearer? Cheers,
Colin
It would be more complicated, but they could change the billing algorithm to be a function of load. Or perhaps they could normalize the CPU measurements based on the performance of similar calls in the past.
I agree that this presents problems for the developers.
Yes this is true. It is a bummer. It also takes them over a second to start up my Java application (which I was billed for) every time they decided my site was in low demand, and didn't need the resources.
I ended up using a cron to auto ping my site every minute to keep it warm.. doing all the wasted work made my bill cheaper, as it didn't have the startup time, instead it just had lots of 2ms pings...
This question appears old and I think the pricing scheme must have changed...
The Google App Engine charges for "instance hours" and the instances currently spawned are viewable in the GAE console. And Google provides adjustments so you can decide cost vs latency for your app.
https://developers.google.com/appengine/docs/adminconsole/performancesettings
I did noticed that if the front-end is bogged down hitting a common backend resource that GAE will spawn a bunch of instances to get latency down. And you will pay for those instance hours even though latency/throughput doesn't improve. The adjustments I mentioned seem to help with that.
I want to scale an e-commerce portal based on LAMP. Recently we've seen huge traffic surge.
What would be steps (please mention in order) in scaling it:
Should I consider moving onto Amazon EC2 or similar? what could be potential problems in switching servers?
Do we need to redesign database? I read, Facebook switched to Cassandra from MySql. What kind of code changes are required if switched to Cassandra? Would Cassandra be better option than MySql?
Possibility of Hadoop, not even sure?
Any other things, which need to be thought of?
Found this post helpful. This blog has nice articles as well. What I want to know is list of steps I should consider in scaling this app.
First, I would suggest making sure every resource served by your server sets appropriate cache control headers. The goal is to make sure truly dynamic content gets served fresh every time and any stable or static content gets served from somebody else's cache as much as possible. Why deliver a product image to every AOL customer when you can deliver it to the first and let AOL deliver it to all the others?
If you currently run your webserver and dbms on the same box, you can look into moving the dbms onto a dedicated database server.
Once you have done the above, you need to start measuring the specifics. What resource will hit its capacity first?
For example, if the webserver is running at or near capacity while the database server sits mostly idle, it makes no sense to switch databases or to implement replication etc.
If the webserver sits mostly idle while the dbms chugs away constantly, it makes no sense to look into switching to a cluster of load-balanced webservers.
Take care of the simple things first.
If the dbms is the likely bottle-neck, make sure your database has the right indexes so that it gets fast access times during lookup and doesn't waste unnecessary time during updates. Make sure the dbms logs to a different physical medium from the tables themselves. Make sure the application isn't issuing any wasteful queries etc. Make sure you do not run any expensive analytical queries against your transactional database.
If the webserver is the likely bottle-neck, profile it to see where it spends most of its time and reduce the work by changing your application or implementing new caching strategies etc. Make sure you are not doing anything that will prevent you from moving from a single server to multiple servers with a load balancer.
If you have taken care of the above, you will be much better prepared for making the move to multiple webservers or database servers. You will be much better informed for deciding whether to scale your database with replication or to switch to a completely different data model etc.
1) First thing - measure how many requests per second can serve you most-visited pages. For well-written PHP sites on average hardware it must be in 200-400 requests per second range. If you are not there - you have to optimize the code by reducing number of database requests, caching rarely changed data in memcached/shared memory, using PHP accelerator. If you are at some 10-20 requests per second, you need to get rid of your bulky framework.
2) Second - if you are still on Apache2, you have to switch to lighthttpd or nginx+apache2. Personally, I like the second option.
3) Then you move all your static data to separate server or CDN. Make sure it is served with "expires" headers, at least 24 hours.
4) Only after all these things you might start thinking about going to EC2/Hadoop, build multiple servers and balancing the load (nginx would also help you there)
After steps 1-3 you should be able to serve some 10'000'000 hits per day easily.
If you need just 1.5-3 times more, I would go for single more powerfull server (8-16 cores, lots of RAM for caching & database).
With step 4 and multiple servers you are on your way to 0.1-1billion hits per day (but for significantly larger hardware & support expenses).
Find out where issues are happening (or are likely to happen if you don't have them now). Knowing what is your biggest resource usage is important when evaluating any solution. Stick to solutions that will give you the biggest improvement.
Consider:
- higher than needed bandwidth use x user is something you want to address regardless of moving to ec2. It will cost you money either way, so its worth a shot at looking at things like this: http://developer.yahoo.com/yslow/
- don't invest into changing databases if that's a non issue. Find out first if that's really the problem, and even if you are having issues with the database it might be a code issue i.e. hitting the database lots of times per request.
- unless we are talking about v. big numbers, you shouldn't have high cpu usage issues, if you do find out where they are happening / optimization is worth it where specific code has a high impact in your overall resource usage.
- after making sure the above is reasonable, you might get big improvements with caching. In bandwith (making sure browsers/proxy can play their part on caching), local resources usage (avoiding re-processing/re-retrieving the same info all the time).
I'm not saying you should go all out with the above, just enough to make sure you won't get the same issues elsewhere in v. few months. Also enough to find out where are your biggest gains, and if you will get enough value from any scaling options. This will also allow you to come back and ask questions about specific problems, and how these scaling options relate to those.
You should prepare by choosing a flexible framework and be sure things are going to change along the way. In some situations it's difficult to predict your user's behavior.
If you have seen an explosion of traffic recently, analyze what are the slowest pages.
You can move to cloud, but EC2 is not the best performing one. Again, be sure there's no other optimization you can do.
Database might be redesigned, but I doubt all of it. Again, see the problem points.
Both Hadoop and Cassandra are pretty nifty, but they might be overkill.