Our postgres server is about hitting its capacity and we're looking into adding a second database server. Are there any scaling solutions that are particularly good for a postgres setup?
You are looking at a limited set of choices, very dependent on what your specific requirements are (read-to-write ratios and how tolerant your application is of occasional inconsistent reads [synchronous vs. asynchronous replication? master-slave vs. multi-master?], how strongly connected your tables are [clustering], etc.)
http://www.postgresql.org/download/products/3
http://pgpool.projects.postgresql.org/
http://www.slony.info/
UPDATE
Over six years have elapsed since the original answer. Please refer to the High Availability, Load Balancing, and Replication chapter in the PostgreSQL documentation for the latest solutions available to you.
Did you check what is your bottleneck? What are the queries that make your server work hard? Maybe it can be tuned better.
If tuning will not help it is often much easier to upgrade a server than to set replication. Adding some disks in RAID1 or RAID10, adding some RAM, more cores and faster processor. A good RAID controller with battery backed cache would make a big difference too.
Replication id good for high availability but often a bigger server will be more cost effective if you have performance problems.
There's Postgres Advanced Server, and Continuent Tungsten are also worth looking into for an enterprise class solution.
Related
I have a VM in Azure running a single SQL Server instance.
I also have recently setup Power BI to refresh from this source at 1am every morning. Unfortunately, this refresh is causing performance issues, where all queries/operations are timing out due to stress.
What are my options regarding a secondary DB for reporting purposes? Main requirements are ease of maintenance and cost (dont need anything enterprise level).
Things that come to mind:
Secondary DB on same VM. Use replication to mirror data
Another cheap VM. Use replication
Use sql server availability sets, connect to read only replica
SQL data warehouse
Can anyone provide some guidance, or ask questions that may help find my answer?
Thanks.
I think Always ON availability group with secondary read-only replica will be best suited for your needs.
Building a separate DW for reporting purpose will be an overkill, as your reporting needs are satisfied from current database already, except for performance.
Transactional replication could be of help here. But, it also needs lot of knowledge on setup and maintenance.
I can think of several options, but in general this sounds like a canonical OLTP vs. OLAP issue, or a call for data warehouse, but since you are on the budget, let's consider low cost options.
Assuming the databases are small (GBs not TBs), I would separate operational and reporting instances either to be on the same machine if it is a pretty beefy machine, or better have two VMs so you can manage capacity separately.
I would consider replication from one instance to another.
Can you boost your VM resources during the period of the Power BI refresh only?
That's one of the key benefits of Azure - you can scale up and down and save money. How long does the refresh take? Who is using your DB at 1am?
I guess for a VM it's difficult to do this so you'd need to migrate to SQL Azure rather than a VM
we have a 500gb database that performs about 10,000 writes per minute.
This database has a requirements for real time reporting. To service this need we have 10 reporting databases hanging off the main server.
The 10 reporting databases are all fed from the 1 master database using transactional replication.
The issue is that the server and replication is starting to fail with PAGEIOLATCH_SH errors - these seem to be caused by the master database being overworked. We are upgrading the server to a quad proc / quad core machine.
As this database and the need for reporting is only going to grow (20% growth per month) I wanted to know if we should start looking at hardware (or other 3rd party application) to manage the replication (what should we use) OR should we change the replication from the master database replicating to each of the reporting databases to the Master replicating to reporting server 1, reporting server 1 replicating to reporting server 2
Ideally the solution will cover us to a 1.5tb database, with 100,000 writes per minute
Any help greatly appreciated
One common model is to have your main database replicate to 1 other node, then have that other node deal with replicating the data out from there. It takes the load off your main server and also has the benefit that if, heaven forbid, your reporting system's replication does max out it won't affect your live database at all.
I haven't gone much further than a handful of replicated hosts, but if you add enough nodes that your distribution node can't replicate it all it's probably sensible to expand the hierarchy so that your distributor is actually replicated to other distributors which then replicate to the nodes you report from.
How many databases you can have replicated off a single node will depend on how up-to-date your reporting data needs to be (EG: Whether it's fine to have it only replicate once a day or whether you need to the second) and how much data you're replicating at a time. Might be worth some experimentation to find out exactly how many nodes 1 distributor could power if it didn't have the overhead of actually running your main services.
Depending on what you're inserting, a load of 100,000 writes/min is pretty light for SQL Server. In my book, I show an example that generates 40,000 writes/sec (2.4M/min) on a machine with simple hardware. So one approach might be to see what you can do to improve the write performance of your primary DB, using techniques such as batch updates, multiple writes per transaction, table valued parameters, optimized disk configuration for your log drive, etc.
If you've already done as much as you can on that front, the next question I have is what kind of queries are you doing that require 10 reporting servers? Seems unusual, even for pretty large sites. There may be a bunch you can do to optimize on that front, too, such as offloading aggregation queries to Analysis Services, or improving disk throughput. While you can, scaling-up is usually a better way to go than scaling-out.
I tend to view replication as a "solution of last resort." Once you've done as much optimization as you can, I would look into horizontal or vertical partitioning for your reporting requirements. One reason is that partitioning tends to result in better cache utilization, and therefore higher total throughput.
If you finally get to the point where you can't escape replication, then the hierarchical approach suggested by fyjham is definitely a reasonable one.
In case it helps, I cover most of these issues in depth in my book:
Ultra-Fast ASP.NET.
Check that your publisher and distributor's transaction log files don't have too many VLFs (Virtual Log Files) as detailed here (step 8):
http://www.sqlskills.com/BLOGS/KIMBERLY/post/8-Steps-to-better-Transaction-Log-throughput.aspx
If your distribution database is co-located with you publisher database, consider moving it to its own dedicated server.
I'm wondering if, under the circumstances that
You get lots more reads than writes
Your SQL server of choice is cheap/free and offers a fast mirroring/replication service
Your database isn't insanely large
rather than having separate SQL servers it would be better to have an instance of SQL on each machine getting instant updates from the master. This way there would be no network latency when doing all the read queries, but there would be a per box performance hit as the SQL instance has to execute. Would this be better overall for performance? Are there any other pros/cons that might come up?
Your SQL Server should always be on a different box to the webserver, of that there is no question.
How many DB servers and webservers you have, and how they mirror (or otherwise) is up to how you scale your application.
You have SQL Server on a different machine because it needs (and deserves) a lot of RAM.
It's quite a common architectural pattern to have read-only replicas of a database. We accept some degree of stalesness in them, perhaps they are even only updated once a day.
The general rule will be that multiple copies will introduce complexity in terms of operations and management and tend to introduce the possibilities of inconsistency of data - almost inevitably the copies will not be perfectly is step (or the costs of making them soo will be too high.)
An example: what happens if your replication processing breaks a bit. So that some, but not all copies become stale. Now your users start to see radically different views of the world. How much might that matter to you? If it's a site with low value data (eg. celebrity sightings in London suberbs) then perhaps that's fine. If it's on hand inventory, and being out of date means that your customers can't place orders, then maybe you care rather more.
My advice: things that sound simple at a boxed on paper sort of level don't always work out that way when you're sitting in an operations room at 3AM. Be very sure that you can easily operate your solution.
How would your SQL Server be cheap/free? I should have said the licensing costs for this setup would be crippling. At retail prices you're looking at $6000 per server. See also Jeff's comments about costs. Scale out the web servers by all means, but not your SQL Server until it's pretty much on its' knees.
You might instead want to think about a distributed cache like Velocity or NCache.
Either way, run your site first with one SQL server and see how it copes with the load, then think about mirroring/replication across servers, otherwise you're just optimising prematurely. Measure first!
An immediate con is that there is no distributed lock co-ordinator in SQL Server so you can get merge conflicts as updates can change the same row on two different servers at the same time.
Depending on the size of the database and the disks in the web servers, you will find your network latency is smaller than the disk latency you will start suffering as the web server disks will not usually be as performant as the disk array you give to the database. If you wanted that kind of performance, you would be buying it per web server.
Replication performance is not without latency either, the distribution of the transactions isn't 'free' and careful maintenance of the transaction log would have to be planned to ensure you did not get log fragmentation (too many vlog's wthin the transaction log) which kills replication performance.
I have to make a decision of which database server to use for my next project, but the simple decision to use MySQL like almost all the projects I did is harder now, because I expect very much records.
The database will store a user list, some other irrelevant tables, and the last one, some user-collected data. Let's say, if I have 6000 users responding to a quiz about each other. Simple math shows that from those users, if each one completes the quiz about everyone (and in my project that is 99% sure that will happen) I'll end up with 35.99million records(they will exclude themselves and in this particular situation the operation is 6000*5999). Unfortunately 6000 maybe is a small number, the real one growing day by day.
What to choose? MySQL and maybe if things go well and the project grows to expand it in a cluster? PostgreSQL, MSSQL? Oracle?
I've read about all of them, each one has it's pros and cons, but still don't know what to choose. The advantage of MySQL and PostgreSQL is of course, the starting price of $0 which is pretty nice in a usual self-funded startup.
Any opinions, pieces of advice? If you encountered this situation in your experience as developers, I'd love to hear from you.
These days, free isn't something that differenciates between databases any more. Both Oracle and SQL Server have free versions, but the limitations is resources - 4 GB database, RAM & single CPU utilization. Millions of records is not a concern - it's what datatypes you're using.
I saw the OPs comment about not liking MS software - that's your prerogative, but using the free versions of either Oracle or SQL Server do benefit from seamless transition to upscale versions of the respective database.
Personally, my choice would be either Oracle or SQL Server because of IMHO, real feature considerations like hierarchical query support, subquery factoring/CTE, packages (long before I get concerned with functions/procedures), full text searching, xml support, etc.
MySQL will handle 35 million records no problem. Worry about scalability when you get there. You can easily add raid hard disks backing your database tables, and if you really start getting big you can get a compellant SAN that will scream... Don't worry about the DB engine as much as the underlying hardware.. MySQL rocks for us with millions of records.
I've had no problems handling tables as large as 36,000,000 rows on MySQL and Oracle.
Just be sure that you index the proper columns, run EXPLAINs for your queries, and maintain proper design principles.
Most of the truly large scale web properties use a distributed key-value store. That said, 35 million is large, but not that large. With most modern databases, your main two scaling worries should be throughput and what happens when no single box can contain your entire database anymore. And both of these problems can be solved to some degree for any database you choose to use. (Caching, replication, sharding, etc.)
Use MySQL until you can't anymore. At that point, you ought to be rolling in dough anyways and you now have a very desirable problem.
Use MySQL as it's free and you have experience with it.
Besides in my opinion it matters more on how you design the tables than which database you use.
35 million records can be easily handled by MS SQL Server (assuming proper database design, indices, etc.). You can start with the free SQL Server Express edition and later, if you need, you can upgrade to the full version which supports clustering, etc.
SQL Server Express does have some limitations - single CPU, 1 GB memory, max 4 GB database size and a few other things. I'm not sure how quickly these limitations will become a problem but you can always move to the full version when you run into them.
MySQL(i) & Postgre
0$ of costs
large community
many tutorials
well documentated
MSSQL
You can get "money" from MS if you promote that you are using MSSQL (secret information from some companies I worked for)
MS tools work very well
Complete tool set from C# IDE over .NET lib to Windows Server 2003
Oracle
Professional and commercial provider
Used by many large companies (I also heard about Blizzard (World of Warcraft) using Oracle)
- expensive
The final decision depends on the very special requirements of your project.
Make yourself a quick list of things , that ARE IMPORTANT for your project (e.g. quick performed queries) and look up which Database pros are matching the most to your requirements.
Everything is about design. SQL Database are some kind of cars, you just have to know which component has to be placed here and which there.
Make a clear design and you won't struggle with any of them.
May be you can test Firebird
Blog post about big Firebird database here
MySQL licence is here (not allways free).
Postgresql and Firebird are free.
First of all, don't think about performance. Premature optimization being the root of all evil and all that. You can always throw more hardware and/or tuning at it later.
All of the mentioned should perform nicely if tuned/maintained correctly. I'd focus on manageability and familiarity. IMHO open source databases excels on manageability (perhaps not the best GUIs, but the CLI has been my home for a long long time).
And if the database becomes the bottleneck, why limit yourself to those choices? How about a key-value distributed database? Or perhaps serialize data directly to disk? Storing data outside of a RDBMS, while often frowned upon, might be the correct path. Or simply use the common route of denormalization.
Always remember not to optimize prematurely.
As far as opinions go (since you specifically asked for it) I favor open source databases, specifically PostgreSQL. It's rock solid, fast and very well-featured. And even with (relatively) large datasets it has performed superbly on mediocre hardware (some tuning involved, of course, but you can't skip that step no matter which db you end up choosing).
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 11 years ago.
MS SQL Server and Oracle, which one is better in terms of scalability?
For example, if the data size reach 500 TB etc.
Both Oracle and SQL Server are shared-disk databases so they are constrained by disk bandwidth for queries that table scan over large volumes of data. Products such as Teradata, Netezza or DB/2 Parallel Edition are 'shared nothing' architectures where the database stores horizontal partitions on the individual nodes. This type of architecture gives the best parallel query performance as the local disks on each node are not constrained through a central bottleneck on a SAN.
Shared disk systems (such as Oracle Real Application Clusters or Clustered SQL Server installations still require a shared SAN, which has constrained bandwidth for streaming. On a VLDB this can seriously restrict the table-scanning performance that is possible to achieve. Most data warehouse queries run table or range scans across large blocks of data. If the query will hit more than a few percent of rows a single table scan is often the optimal query plan.
Multiple local direct-attach disk arrays on nodes gives more disk bandwidth.
Having said that I am aware of an Oracle DW shop (a major european telco) that has an oracle based data warehouse that loads 600 GB per day, so the shared disk architecture does not appear to impose unsurmountable limitations.
Between MS-SQL and Oracle there are some differences. IMHO Oracle has better VLDB support than SQL server for the following reasons:
Oracle has native support for bitmap indexes, which are an index structure suitable for high speed data warehouse queries. They essentially do a CPU for I/O tradeoff as they are run-length encoded and use relatively little space. On the other hand, Microsoft claim that Index Intersection is not appreciably slower.
Oracle has better table partitioning facilities than SQL Server. IIRC The table partitioning in SQL Server 2005 can only be done on a single column.
Oracle can be run on somewhat larger hardware than SQL Server, although one can run SQL server on some quite respectably large systems.
Oracle has more mature support for Materialized views and Query rewrite to optimise relational queries. SQL2005 does have some query rewrite capability but it is poorly documented and I haven't seen it used in a production system. However, Microsoft will suggest that you use Analysis Services, which does actually support shared nothing configurations.
Unless you have truly biblical data volumes and are choosing between Oracle and a shared nothing architecture such as Teradata you will probably see little practical difference between Oracle and SQL Server. Particularly since the introduction of SQL2005 the partitioning facilities in SQL Server are viewed as good enough and there are plenty of examples of multi-terabyte systems that have been successfully implemented on it.
When you are talking 500TB, that is (a) big and (b) specialized.
I'd be going to a consultancy firm with appropriate specialists to look at the existing skill sets, integration with existing technology stacks, expected usage, backup/recovery/DR requirements....
In short, it's not the sort of project I'd be heading into based on opinions from stackoverflow. No offence intended, but there's simply too many factors to take into account, a lot of which would be business confidential.
Whether Oracle or MSSQL will scale / perform better is question #15. The data model is the first make-it or break-it item regardless of if you're running Oracle, MSSQL, Informix or anything else. Data model structure, what kind of applicaiton, how it accesses the db etc, which platform your developers know well enough to target for a large system etc are the first questions you should ask yourself.
I've worked as a DBA on Oracle (although some years back) and I use MSSQL extensively now, although not as a formal DBA. My advice would be that in the vast majority of cases both will meet everything you can throw at them and your performance issues will be much more dependent upon database design and deployment than the underlying characteristics of the products, which in both cases are absolutely and utterly solid (MSSQL is the best product that MS makes in many peoples opinion so don't let the usual perception of MS blind you on that).
Myself I would tend towards MSSQL unless your system is going to be very large and truly enterprise level (massive numbers of users, multiple 9's uptime etc.) simply because in my experience Oracle tends to require a higher level of DBA knowledge and maintenance than MSSQL to get the best out of it. Oracle also tends to be more expensive, both for initial deployment and in the cost to hire DBAs for it. OTOH if you are looking at an enterprise system then Oracle would have the edge, not least because if you can afford it their support is second to none.
I have to agree with those who said deisgn was more important.
I've worked with superfast and super slow databases of many different flavors (the absolute worst being an Oracle database, but it wasn't Oracle's fault). Design of the database and how you decide to index it and partition it and query it have far more to do with the scalability than whether the product is from MSSQL Server or Oracle.
I think you may more easily find more Oracle dbas with terrabyte database experience (running a large database is a specialty just like knowing a particular flavor of SQL) but that could depend on your local area.
oracle people will tell you oracle is better, sql server peopele will tell you sql server is better.
i say they scale pretty much the same. use what you know better. you have databases out there that are that size on oracle as well as sql server
When you get to OBSCENE database sizes (where over 1TB is really big enough, and 500TB is frigging massive), then operational support must come very high up on the list of requirements. With that much data, you don't mess about with penny pinching system specifications.
How are you going to backup that size of system? Upgrade the OS and patch the database? Scalability and reliability a concern?
I have experience of both Oracle and MS SQL, and for the really really big systems (users, data or importance) then Oracle is better designed for operational support and data management.
Every tried to backup and restore a 1TB+ SQL Server database split over multiple databases on multiple instances with transaction log files being spat out everywhere by each database and trying to keep it all in sync? Good luck with that.
With Oracle, you have ONE database (so I disagree with the "shared nothing" approach is better) with ONE set of REDO logs(1) and one set of archive logs(2) and you can just add extra hardware nodes without changing (i.e. repartitioning) you application and data.
(1) Redo logs are, of course, mirrored.
(2) Archive logs are, of course, stored in multiple locations.
It would also depend on what is your application meant for. If it uses only Inserts with very few updates, then I think MSSQL would be more scalable and better in terms of performance. However if one has lots of updates, then Oracle would scaleup better
I very much doubt that you are going to get an objective answer to that particular question, until you come across anyone that has implemented the same database (schema, data, etc.) on both platforms.
However given the fact that you can find millions of happy users of both databases, I dare say it's not too much of a stretch to say either will scale just fine (I've seen a snappy Sql 2005 implementation of 300 TB that seemed pretty responsive)
Oracle like a high-quality manual film camera, which needs the best photographer to take the best picture while MS SQL like an automatic digital camera. In old days, of course, all professional photographers will use film camera, now think about how many professional photographers use automatic digital camera.