Update 4: Why you don’t want to shard. by Morgon on the MySQL Performance Blog. Optimize everything else first, and then if performance still isn’t good enough, it’s time to take a very bitter medicine.
Update 3: Building Scalable Databases: Pros and Cons of Various Database Sharding Schemes by Dare Obasanjo. Excellent discussion of why and when you would choose a sharding architecture, how to shard, and problems with sharding.
Update 2: Mr. Moore gets to punt on sharding by Alan Rimm-Kaufman of 37signals. Insightful article on design tradeoffs and the evils of premature optimization. With more memory, more CPU, and new tech like SSD, problems can be avoided before more exotic architectures like sharding are needed. Add features not infrastructure. Jeremy Zawodny says he's wrong wrong wrong. we're running multi-core CPUs at slower clock speeds. Moore won't save you.
Update: Dan Pritchett shares some excellent Sharding Lessons: Size Your Shards, Use Math on Shard Counts, Carefully Consider the Spread, Plan for Exceeding Your Shards
Once upon a time we scaled databases by buying ever bigger, faster, and more expensive machines. While this arrangement is great for big iron profit margins, it doesn't work so well for the bank accounts of our heroic system builders who need to scale well past what they can afford to spend on giant database servers. In a extraordinary two article series, Dathan Pattishall, explains his motivation for a revolutionary new database architecture--sharding--that he began thinking about even before he worked at Friendster, and fully implemented at Flickr. Flickr now handles more than 1 billion transactions per day, responding in less then a few seconds and can scale linearly at a low cost.
What is sharding and how has it come to be the answer to large website scaling problems?
- Unorthodox approach to database design Part1:History
- Unorthodox approach to database design Part 2:Friendster
What is sharding?
While working at Auction Watch, Dathan got the idea to solve their scaling problems by creating a database server for a group of users and running those servers on cheap Linux boxes. In this scheme the data for User A is stored on one server and the data for User B is stored on another server. It's a federated model. Groups of 500K users are stored together in what are called shards.
The advantages are:
How is sharding different than traditional architectures?Sharding is different than traditional database architecture in several important ways:
This doesn't mean you don't also segregate data by type. You can keep a user's profile data separate from their comments, blogs, email, media, etc, but the user profile data would be stored and retrieved as a whole. This is a very fast approach. You just get a blob and store a blob. No joins are needed and it can be written with one disk write.
Smaller sets of data are also easier to backup, restore, and manage.
Obviously the master becomes the write bottleneck and a single point of failure. And as load increases the cost of replication increases. Replication costs in CPU, network bandwidth, and disk IO. The slaves fall behind and have stale data. The folks at YouTube had a big problem with replication overhead as they scaled.
Sharding cleanly and elegantly solves the problems with replication.
Some Problems With ShardingSharding isn't perfect. It does have a few problems.
On some platforms I've worked on this is a killer problem. You had to build out the data center correctly from the start because moving data from shard to shard required a lot of downtime.
Rebalancing has to be built in from the start. Google's shards automatically rebalance. For this to work data references must go through some sort of naming service so they can be relocated. This is what Flickr does. And your references must be invalidateable so the underlying data can be moved while you are using it.