I currently have a 2 node solr (4.10.3) cloud cluster configured as 1 shard with 2 replicas (with a 3 node external zookeeper ensemble). How can I setup solr cloud to use one box just for searching, and one box just for indexing?
Is it as simple as pointing clients to their specific nodes?
For example if we have solr01(indexer) and solr02(searcher). We point all clients to solr02 when to perform a search, and all clients to solr01 when they need to add new data. The main downside that I can see to this is that it would reduce redundancy.
Is there some way to configure solr cloud to do handle this automatically?
Mmmm I think your idea fits better with a classic master / slaves architecture [1]. In SolrCloud you don't have such "dedicated" roles (indexer and searcher) because each node does that (potentially). So it doesn't make sense to have a cloud with distinct roles between instances.
Using a classic replication instead, you will get exactly that scenario: an (offline) indexer that replicates index changes on several searcher that can be queried in round-robin mode for load balancing.
[1] https://wiki.apache.org/solr/SolrReplication
Related
Is there a way to extract data from a Scylla database for use in data analysis without directly querying from the production DB?
I want to do large queries against the data but don't want to take down production
The typical way folks accomplish this, is to build an “analytics DC” in the same physical DC.
So if (one of) your prod DCs is named “dc-west” you would create a new one named “dc-west-analytics” or something like that. Once the new DCs nodes are out there, change the keyspace to replicate to it. Run a repair on the new DC, and it should be ready for use.
On the app side or wherever the queries are running from, make sure it uses the LOCAL consistency levels and points to “dc-west-analytics” as its “local” DC.
In ScyllaDB Enterprise, a feature called Workload Prioritization allows you to assign CPU and I/O shares to your analytics and production workloads, isolating them from each other.
Consider scenario that
I have multiple devclouds (remote workplace for developers), they are all virtual machines running on the same bare-metal server.
In the past, they used their own MongoDB containers running on Docker. So that number of MongoDB containers can add up to over 50 instances across devclouds.
The problem becomes apparent that while 50 instances is running at the same time, but only 5 people actually perform read/write operations against their own instances. So other 45 running instances waste the server's resources.
Should I use only one MongoDB cluster by combining a set of MongoDB instances ,for everyone so that they can connect to 1 endpoint only (via internal network) to avoid wasting resources.
I am considering the sharding strategy, but the problem is there are chances that if one node taken down (one VM shut down), is that ok for availability (redundancy)?
I am pretty new to sharding and replication, looking forward to know your solutions. Thank you
If each developer expects to have full control over their database deployment, you can't combine the deployments. Otherwise one developer can delete all data in the deployment, etc.
If each developer expects to have access to one database, you can deploy a single replica set serving all developers and assign one database per developer (via authentication).
Sharding in MongoDB sense (a sharded cluster) is not really going to help in this scenario since an application generally uses all of the shards. You can of course "shard manually" by setting up multiple replica sets.
Trying to deploy a project on t3 large server with auto scaling.
I have my elastic search service deployed on same system as node and react projects.(Not using AWS elastic search)
Will it be facing issues in future and i need to segregate elastic search service to some other server?
It's always nice to have a separate dedicated server for running the Elasticsearch server but as you are using AWS some of the things which you can do to minimize the issues:
Elasticsearch is a stateful application contrast to your node and react app unless you are storing the state there as well which is not a good idea and due to stateless nature of the applications, autoscaling is very useful as you can on-demand based on the CPU, memory or other metrics scale up or down the instances.
But in case of Elasticsearch or other stateful applications, it becomes tricky as when you scale up or down the instance, shards get relocated if they are not reachable within a threshold which can lead to unbalanced Elasticsearech cluster.
Now in order to minimize these issues:
Make sure you can storing Elasticsearch indices on the network-attached disk so that there is no data loss when autoscaling brings a new instance and new instance again should use earlier network attaches EBS(where your data is stored).
Make sure you don't create a new Elasticsearch process when you scale up or down the instances according to your autoscaling policy and the Elasticsearch process should be fixed and scale up/down with some manual intervention.
If you have to scale up the Elasticsearch cluster then make sure you disable shard allocation to avoid the issues mentioned earlier.
These are some known issues which you might face and there could be even more based on your configuration and while writing the answer itself I felt, it so easy to just have a dedicated instance for Elasticsearch to avoid these weird issues.
I would add to other answers following:
Elasticsearch performs best if it has enough RAM to keep indexes in entirety in RAM. If the Elasticsearch is competing with Node/Application for RAM it will affect it's performance.
From maintenance/performance perspective you should consider having at least 3-node cluster. Even if that means you have smaller machines. If AWS is upgrading infrastructure and you have 1 machine, when than 0.05% unavailability hits your search is down. If you need to do maintenance on the node or do upgrades having multiple machines will help with availability.
Depending on your use of Elasticsearch and how often you update/delete items in the indexes, and how fast your indexes will grow, adding more machines/nodes to the cluster will help with growth.
There are probably many more things to consider, but that totally depends on your application, budget, SLAs etc.
I have an Asp.Net core 2.0 Wen API that has a relatively simple logic (simple select on a SQL Azure DB, return about 1000-2000 records. No joins, aggregates, functions etc.). I have only 1 GET API. which is called from an angular SPA. Both are deployed in service fabric as as stateless services, hosted in Kestrel as self hosting exes.
considering the number of users and how often they refresh, I've determined there will be around 15000 requests per minute. in other words 250 req/sec.
I'm trying to understand the different settings when creating my Service Fabric cluster.
I want to know:
How many Node Types? (I've determined as Front-End, and Back-End)
How many nodes per node type?
What is the VM size I need to select?
I have ready the azure documentation on cluster capacity planning. while I understand the concepts, I don't have a frame of reference to determine the actual values i need to provide to the above questions.
In most places where you read about the planning of a cluster they will suggest that this subject is part science and part art, because there is no easy answer to this question. It's hard to answer it because it depends a lot on the complexity of your application, without knowing the internals on how it works we can only guess a solution.
Based on your questions the best guidance I can give you is, Measure first, Measure again, Measure... Plan later. Your application might be memory intensive, network intensive, CPU, Disk and son on, the only way to find the best configuration is when you understand it.
To understand your application before you make any decision on SF structure, you could simply deploy a simple cluster with multiple node types containing one node of each VM size and measure your application behavior on each of them, and then you would add more nodes and span multiple instances of your service on these nodes and see which configuration is a best fit for each service.
1.How many Node Types?
I like to map node types as 1:1 to roles on your application, but is not a law, it will depend how much resource each service will consume, if the service consume enough resource to make a single VM(node) busy (Memory, CPU, Disk, IO), this is a good candidate to have it's own node type, in other cases there are services that are light-weight that would be a waste of resources provisioning an entire VM(node) just for it, an example is scheduled jobs, backups, and so on, In this case you could provision a set of machines that could be shared for these services, one important thing you have to keep in mind when you share a node-type with multiple service is that they will compete for resources(memory, CPU, network, disk) and the performance measures you took for each service in isolation might not be the same anymore, so they would require more resources, the option is test them together.
Another point is the number of replicas, having a single instance of your service is not reliable, so you would have to create replicas of it(the right number I describe on next answer), in this case you end up with a service load split in to multiple nodes, making this node-type under utilized, is where you would consider joining services on same node-type.
2.How many nodes per node type?
As stated before, it will depend on your service resource consumption, but a very basic rule is a minimum of 3 per node type.
Why 3?
Because 3 is the lowest number where you could have a rolling update and guarantee a quorum of 51% of nodes\service\instances running.
1 Node: If you have a service running 1 instance in a node-type of 1 node, when you deploy a new version of your service, you would have to bring down this instance before the new comes up, so you would not have any instance to serve the load while upgrading.
2 Nodes: Similar to 1 node, but in this case you keep only 1 node running, in case of failure, you wouldn't have a failover to handle the load until the new instance come up, it will worse if you are running a stateful service, because you will have only one copy of your data during the upgrade and in case of failure you might loose data.
3 Nodes: During a update you still have 2 nodes available, when the one being updated get back, the next one is put down and you still have 2 nodes running, in case of failure of one node, the other node can support the load until a new node is deployed.
3 nodes does not mean the your cluster will be highly reliable, it means the chances of failure and data loss will be lower, you might be unlucky a loose 2 nodes at same time. As suggested in the docs, in production is better to always keep the number of nodes as 5 or more, and plan to have a quorum of 51% nodes\services available. In this case I would recommend 5, 7 or 9 nodes in cases you really need higher uptime 99.9999...%
3.What is the VM size I need to select?
As said before, only measurements will give this answer.
Observations:
These recommendations does not take into account the planning for primary node types, it is recommended to have at least 5 nodes on primary Node Types, it is where SF system services are placed, they are responsible to manage the
cluster, so they must be highly reliable, otherwise you risk losing control of your cluster. If you plan to share these nodes with your application services, keep in mind that your services might impact them, so you have to always monitor them to check for any impact it might cause.
we're planing to deploy a web-application with Amazon OpsWork and I just wanted to check with you, if our architecture might have any design flaws.
We've 4 components:
A load balanacer (Amazon preferably)
Express based on Node.js
MongoDB
ElasticSearch
Here's a communication diagram of our components:
At the front is a load balancer which distributes http requests to multiple web servers.
The web server is stateless and therefore can be cloned each time the load requires it. All web server instances are equal. Session information is saved in the MongoDB.
In the "backend" we're planing to use the build-in cluster functionalities from MongoDB and ElasticSearch. Therefore each web server instance only connects to a single MongoDB and ElasticSearch master instance. MongoDB and ElasticSearch are then scaling accordingly. Furthermore the the ElasticSearch master speaks to the MongoDB master to retrieve data for building the index.
How we see it, the most challenging task to setup such a system, is to configure OpsWorks with the MongoDB and ElasticSearch cluster.
Many thanks in advance!
if our architecture might have any design flaws.
Well, keep in mind that we can't tell much from a generic diagram. But here are some notes:
1) MongoDB isn't as easy to scale as other databases such as DynamoDB, Riak or Cassandra. For example, if you ever exceed the capacity of a single master (no matter how many slaves you have, all writes go to the single master), you'll have to shard. But switching to sharding is very disruptive and very tedious to set up.
If you don't expect to exceed the write capacity of one node, then you'll be fine on MongoDB.
2) What will you do for async tasks such as sending emails, creating long reports, etc?
It's possible to do these things in the request loop, and that's probably a fine way to get started. But as you have more boxes, the chances of failure go up. When a box dies, all the async tasks go away and nobody will know what they were. You also can have problems where one box gets heavily loaded with async tasks (using too much CPU or memory), and the problem will get worse and worse as it gets more tasks and completes them more slowly.
Also, a front-end like ELB will have a 60-second limit, which can cause problems if some of your requests could take longer. (Spin them off into async jobs with polling or something.)
3) ELB doesn't support web sockets. Consider that if you think you might want websockets down the road.
There's no such thing as a master in elastic search. You have master copies of shards and replicas of shards but they are basically moved around through your cluster by elastic search. Nodes might be master for one shard and a replica for another. So, you could simply put a load balancer in front of it.
However, you can specialize nodes to be data nodes or routing nodes as explained here: http://www.elasticsearch.org/guide/reference/modules/node/
The routing nodes effectively become load balancers. You could have a few of those (redundancy) and distribute load between those. Alternatively, you could run a dedicated router node on each web server. Basically routing nodes are pretty light and you save a bit of bandwidth/latency since your web server talks to localhost and from there it is all elastic search internal cluster traffic.
I'd recommend to replace MongoDB with Amazon Dynamo DB (it has node.js SDK).