advertise
Tuesday
Jul152008

ZooKeeper - A Reliable, Scalable Distributed Coordination System 

ZooKeeper is a high available and reliable coordination system. Distributed applications use ZooKeeper to store and mediate updates key configuration information. ZooKeeper can be used for leader election, group membership, and configuration maintenance. In addition ZooKeeper can be used for event notification, locking, and as a priority queue mechanism. It's a sort of central nervous system for distributed systems where the role of the brain is played by the coordination service, axons are the network, processes are the monitored and controlled body parts, and events are the hormones and neurotransmitters used for messaging. Every complex distributed application needs a coordination and orchestration system of some sort, so the ZooKeeper folks at Yahoo decide to build a good one and open source it for everyone to use. The target market for ZooKeeper are multi-host, multi-process C and Java based systems that operate in a data center. ZooKeeper works using distributed processes to coordinate with each other through a shared hierarchical name space that is modeled after a file system. Data is kept in memory and is backed up to a log for reliability. By using memory ZooKeeper is very fast and can handle the high loads typically seen in chatty coordination protocols across huge numbers of processes. Using a memory based system also mean you are limited to the amount of data that can fit in memory, so it's not useful as a general data store. It's meant to store small bits of configuration information rather than large blobs. Replication is used for scalability and reliability which means it prefers applications that are heavily read based. Typical of hierarchical systems you can add nodes at any point of a tree, get a list of entries in a tree, get the value associated with an entry, and get notification of when an entry changes or goes away. Using these primitives and a little elbow grease you can construct the higher level services mentioned above. Why would you ever need a distribute coordination system? It sounds kind of weird. That's more the question I'll be addressing in this post rather than how it works because the slides and the video do a decent job explaining at a high level what ZooKeeper can do. The low level details could use another paper however. Reportedly it uses a version of the famous Paxos Algorithm to keep replicas consistent in the face of the failures most daunting. What's really missing is a motivation showing how you can use a coordination service in your own system and that's what I hope to provide... Kevin Burton wants to use ZooKeeper to to configure external monitoring systems like Munin and Ganglia for his Spinn3r blog indexing web service. He proposes each service register its presence in a cluster with ZooKeeper under the tree "/services/www." A Munin configuration program will add a ZooKeeper Watch on that node so it will be notified when the list of services under /services/www changes. When the Munin configuration program is notified of a change it reads the service list and automatically regenerates a munin.conf file for the service. Why not simply use a database? Because of the guarantees ZooKeeper makes about its service:

  • Watches are ordered with respect to other events, other watches, and asynchronous replies. The ZooKeeper client libraries ensures that everything is dispatched in order.
  • A client will see a watch event for a znode it is watching before seeing the new data that corresponds to that znode.
  • The order of watch events from ZooKeeper corresponds to the order of the updates as seen by the ZooKeeper service. You can't get these guarantees from an event system plopped on top of a database and these are the sort of guarantees you need in a complex distributed system where connections drop, nodes, fail, retransmits happen, and chaos rules the day. What rules the night is too terrible to contemplate. For example, it's important that a service-up event is seen after the service-down or you may unnecessarily drop revenue producing work because of an event out-of-order issue. Not that I would know anything about this mind you :-) A weakness of ZooKeeper is the fact that changes happened are dropped: Because watches are one time triggers and there is latency between getting the event and sending a new request to get a watch you cannot reliably see every change that happens to a node in ZooKeeper. Be prepared to handle the case where the znode changes multiple times between getting the event and setting the watch again. (You may not care, but at least realize it may happen.) This means that ZooKeeper is a state based system more than an event system. Watches are set as a side-effect of getting data so you'll always have a valid initial state and on any subsequent change events you'll refresh to get new values. If you want to use events to log when and how something changed, for example, then you can't do that. You would have to include change history in the data itself. Let's take a look at another example of where ZooKeeper could be useful. Picture a complex backend system running on, let's say, a 100 nodes (maybe a lot less, maybe a lot more) in a data center. For example purposes assume the system is an ad system for serving advertisements to web sites. Ad systems are complex beasts that require a fair bit of coordination. Imagine all the subsystems needing to run on those 100 nodes: database, monitoring, fraud detectors, beacon servers, web server event log processors, failover servers, customer dashboards, targeting engines, campaign planners, campaign scenario testers, upgrades, installs, media managers, and so on. There's a lot going on. Now imagine the power in the data center flips and all the machines power on. How do all the processes across all the hosts know what to do? Now imagine everything is up and a few machines go down. How do all the processes know what to do in this situation? This is where a coordination service comes in. A coordination service acts as the backplane over which all these subsystems figure out what they should do relative to all the other subsystems in a product. How, for example, do the ad servers know which database to use? Clearly there are many options for solving this problem. Using standard DNS naming conventions is one. Configuration files is another. Hard coding is still a favorite. Using a bootstrap service locator service is yet another (assuming you can bootstrap the bootstrap service). Ideally any solution must work just as well during unit testing, system testing, and deployment. In this scenario ZooKeeper acts as the service locator. Each process goes to ZooKeeper and finds out which is the primary database. If a new primary is elected, say because a host fails, then ZooKeeper sends an event that allows everyone dependent on the database to react by getting the new primary database. Having complicated retry logic in application code to fail over to another database server is simply a disaster as every programmer will mess it up in their own way. Using a coordination service nicely deals with the problem of services locating other services in all scenarios. Of course, using a proxy like MySQL Proxy would remove even more application level complexity in dealing with failover and request routing. How did the database servers decide which role they'll would play in the first place? All the database servers boot up and say "I'm a database server brave and strong, what's my role in life? Am I a primary or a secondary server? Or if I'm a shard what key range do I serve?" If 10 servers are database servers negotiating roles can be a very complicated and error prone process. A declarative approach through configuration files that specify a failover ring in configuration files is a good approach, but it's a pain to get to work in local development and test environments as the machines are always changing. It's easier to let the database servers come up and self organize themselves on initial role election and in failure scenarios. The advantage of this system is that it can run locally on one machine or on a dozen machines in the data center with very little effort. ZooKeeper supports this type of coordination behavior. Now let's say I want to change the configuration of ad targeting state machines currently running in 40 processes on 40 different hosts. How do I do that? The first approach is no approach. Most systems make it so a new code release has to happen, which is very sloooow. Another approach is a configuration file. Configuration is put in a distribution package and pushed to all nodes. Each process then periodically checks to see if the configuration file has changed and if it has then the new configuration read. That's the basics. Infinite variations can follow. You can have configuration for different subsystems. There's complexity because you have to know what packages are running on which nodes. You have to deal with rollback in case all packages don't push correctly. You have to change the configuration, make a package, test it, then push it to the data center operations team which may take a while to perform the upgrade. It's a slow process. And when you get into changes that impact multiple subsystems it gets even more complicated. Another approach I've taken is to embed a web server in each process so you can see the metrics and change the configuration for each process on the fly. While powerful for a single process it's harder to manipulate sets of processes across a data center using this approach. Using ZooKeeper I can store my state machine definition as a node which is loaded from the static configuration collected from every distribution package in a product. Every process dependent on that node can register as a watcher when they initially read the state machine. When the state machine is updated all dependent entities will get an event that causes them reload the state machine into the process. Simple and straightforward. All processes will eventually get the change and any rebooting processes will pick up the new state machine on initialization. A very cool way to reliably and centrally control a large distributed application. One caveat is I don't see much activity on the ZooKeeper forum. And the questions that do get asked largely go unanswered. Not a good sign when considering such a key piece of infrastructure. Another caveat that may not be obvious on first reading is that your application state machine using ZooKeeper will have to be intimately tied to ZooKeeper's state machine. When a ZooKeeper server dies, for example, your application must process that event and reestablish all your watches on a new server. When a watch event comes your application must handle the event and set new watches. The algorithms to carry out higher level operations like locks and queues are driven by multi-step state machines that must be correctly managed by your application. And as ZooKeeper deals with state that is probably stored in your application it's important to worry about thread safety. Callbacks from the ZooKeeper thread could access shared data structures. An Actor model where you dump ZooKeeper events into your own Actor queues could be a very useful application architecture here for synthesizing different state machines in a thread safe manner.

    Some Fast Facts

  • How data are partitioned across multiple machines? Complete replication in memory. (yes this is limiting)
  • How does update happen (interaction across machines)? All updates flow through the master and are considered complete when a quorum confirms the update.
  • How does read happen (is getting a stale copy possible) ? Reads go to any member of the cluster. Yes, stale copies can be returned. Typically, these are very fresh, however.
  • What is the responsibility of a leader? To assign serial id's to all updates and confirm that a quorum has received the update.
  • There are several limitations that stand out in this architecture: - complete replication limits the total size of data that can be managed using Zookeeper. This is acceptable in some applications, not acceptable in others. In the original domain of Zookeeper (management of configuration and status), it isn't an issue, but zookeeper is good enough to encourage creative misuse where this can become a problem. - serializing all updates through a single leader can be a performance bottleneck. On the other hand, it is possible to push 50K updates per second through a leader and the associated quorum so this limit is pretty high. - the data storage model is completely non relational. These answers were provided by Ted Dunning on the Cloud Computing group.

    Related Articles

  • An Introduction to ZooKeeper Video (Hadoop and Distributed Computing at Yahoo!) (PDF)
  • ZooKeeper Home, Email List, and Recipes (which has some odd conotations for a Zoo).
  • The Chubby Lock Service for Loosely-Coupled Distributed Systems from Google
  • Paxos Made Live – An Engineering Perspective by Tushar Chandra, Robert Griesemer, and Joshua Redstone from Google.
  • Updates on Open Source Distributed Consensus by Kevin Burton
  • Using ZooKeeper to configure External Monitoring Systems by Kevin Burton
  • Paxos Made Simple by Leslie Lamport
  • Hyperspace - API description of Hyperspace, a Chubby-like service
  • Notes on ZooKeeper at the Hadoop Summit by James Hamilton.

    Click to read more ...

  • Thursday
    Jul102008

    Can cloud computing smite down evil zombie botnet armies?

    In the more cool stuff I've never heard of before department is something called Self Cleansing Intrusion Tolerance (SCIT). Botnets are created when vulnerable computers live long enough to become infected with the will to do the evil bidding of their evil masters. Security is almost always about removing vulnerabilities (a process which to outside observers often looks like a dog chasing its tail). SCIT takes a different approach, it works on the availability angle. Something I never thought of before, but which makes a great deal of sense once I thought about it. With SCIT you stop and restart VM instances every minute (or whatever depending in your desired window vulnerability).... This short exposure window means worms and viri do not have long enough to fully infect a machine and carry out a coordinated attack. A machine is up for a while. Does work. And then is torn down again only to be reborn as a clean VM with no possibility of infection (unless of course the VM mechanisms become infected). It's like curing cancer by constantly moving your consciousness to new blemish free bodies. Hmmm... SCIT is really a genius approach to scalable (I have to work in scalability somewhere) security and and fits perfectly with cloud computing and swarm (cloud of clouds) computing. Clouds provide plenty of VMs so there is a constant ready supply of new hosts. From a software design perspective EC2 has been training us to expect failures and build Crash Only Software. We've gone stateless where we can so load balancing to a new VM is not problem. Where we can't go stateless we use work queues and clusters so again, reincarnating to new VMs is not a problem. So purposefully restarting VMs to starve zombie networks was born for cloud computing. If a wider move could be made to cloud backed thin clients the internet might be a safer place to live, play, and work. Imagine being free(er) from spam blasts and DDOS attacks. Oh what a wonderful world it would be...

    Click to read more ...

    Wednesday
    Jul092008

    Federation at Flickr: Doing Billions of Queries Per Day

    Flickr's lone database guy Dathan Pattishall made his excellent presentation available on how on how Flickr scales its backend to handle tremendous loads. Some of this information is available in Flickr Architecture, but the paper is so good it's worth another read. If you want to see sharding done right, at scale, take a look.

    Click to read more ...

    Monday
    Jul072008

    Five Ways to Stop Framework Fixation from Crashing Your Scaling Strategy

    If you've wondered why I haven't been posting lately it's because I've been on an amazing Beach's motorcycle tour of the Alps (and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and). My wife (Linda) and I rode two-up on a BMW 1200 GS through the alps in Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Italy, Slovenia, and Lichtenstein. The trip was more beautiful than I ever imagined. We rode challenging mountain pass after mountain pass, froze in the rain, baked in the heat, woke up on excellent Italian coffee, ate slice after slice of tasty apple strudel, drank dazzling local wines, smelled the fresh cut grass as the Swiss en masse cut hay for the winter feeding of their dairy cows, rode the amazing Munich train system, listened as cow bells tinkled like wind chimes throughout small valleys, drank water from a pure alpine spring on a blisteringly hot hike, watched local German folk dancers represent their regions, and had fun in the company of fellow riders. Magical. They say you'll ride more twists and turns on this trip than all the rest of your days riding put together. I almost believe that now. It wasn't uncommon at all to have 40 hairpin turns up one side of the pass and another 40 on the way down. And you could easily ride over 5 passes a day. Take a look at the above picture for one of the easier examples. Which leads me to the subject of this post. It's required by the Official Blogger Handbook after a vacation to conjure some deep insight tying the vacation experience to the topic of blog. I got nada. Really. As you might imagine motorcycling and scalability aren't deeply explicable of each other. Except perhaps for one idea that I pondered a bit while riding through hills that were alive with music: target fixation. Target fixation is the simple notion that the bike goes where you look. Focus on an obstacle and you'll hit the obstacle, even though you are trying to avoid it. The brain focuses so intently on an object that you end up colliding with it. So the number one rule of riding is: look where you want to go. Or in true self-help speak: focus on the solution instead of the problem. Here's a great YouTube video showing what can happen. And here's another... It may be hard to believe target fixation exists as a serious risk. But it's frustratingly true and it's a problem across all human endeavors. If you've ever driven a car and have managed to hit the one pot hole in the road that you couldn't take your eyes off--that's target fixation. Paragliders who want to avoid the lone tree in a large barren field can still mange to hit that tree because they become fixated on it. Fighter pilots would tragically concentrate on their gun sights so completely they would fly straight into the ground. Skiers who look at trees instead of the spaces in between slam into a cold piny embrace. Mountain bikers who focus on the one big rock will watch that rock as they tumble after. But target fixation isn't just about physical calamity. People can mentally stick to a plan that is failing because all they can see is the plan and they ignore the ground rushing up to meet them. This is where the framework fixation that we'll talk about a little later comes in. But for now pretend to be a motorcycle rider for a second. Imagine you are in one of those hairpin turns in the above picture. You are zooming along. You just masterfully passed a doubledecker tour bus and you are carrying a lot of speed into the turn. The corner gets closer and closer. Even closer. Stress levels jump. Corners are scary. Your brain suddenly jumps to a shiny thing off to the side of the road. The shiny thing is all you can see in your mind even though you know the corner looms and you must act. The shiny thing can be anything. In honor of Joey Chestnut's heroic defeat of Kobayashi at Nathan’s Famous Hot Dog Eating Competition, I inserted a giant hot dog as a possible distraction in the photo. But maybe it's a cow with a particularly fine bell. Or a really cool castle ruin. A picture perfect waterfall. Or maybe it's the fact that there's no guardrail and the fall is a 4000 feet drop and a really big truck is coming into your lane. Whatever the distraction, when you focus on that shiny thing you'll drive to it and fly off the corner. That's target fixation. Your brain will guide you to what you are focused on, not where you want to go. I've done it. Even really good riders do it. Maybe we've all done it. In true Ninja fashion we can turn target fixation to our advantage. On entering a turn pick a line, scrub off speed before beginning the turn, and turn your head to look up the road where you want to go. You will end up making a perfect turn with no conscious effort. Your body will automatically make all the adjustments needed to carry out the turn because you are looking where you want to go, which is the stretch of road after the turn. This even works in really tight obstacle courses where you need to literally turn on a dime. Now at first you don't believe this. You think you must consciously control your every movement at all times or the world fall into a chaotic mess. But that's not so. If you want to screw up someone's golf game ask them to explain their swing to you. Once they consciously start thinking about their swing they won't be able to do it anymore. This is because about half the 100 billion neurons in your brain are dedicated to learned unconscious motor movement. There's a lot of physical hardware in your brain dedicated to help you throw a rock to take down a deer for dinner. Once your clumsy conscious mind interferes all that hard won expertise looks like a 1960s AI experiment gone terribly wrong. Frameworks can also cause a sort of target fixation. As an example, let's say you are building a microblogging product and you pick a framework that makes creating an ORM based system easy, clean, and beautiful. This approach works fine for a while. Then you take off and grow at an enviable rate. But you are having a problem scaling to meet the new demand. So you keep working and reworking the ORM framework trying to get it to scale. It's not working. But the ORM tool is so shiny it's hard to consider another possibly more appropriate scaling architecture. You end up missing the corner and flying off the side of the road, wondering what the heck happened. That's the downside of framework fixation. You spend so much time trying frame your problem in terms of the framework that you lose sight of where you are trying to go. In the microblogging case the ORM framework is completely irrelevant to the microblogging product, yet most of the effort goes into making the ORM scale instead of stepping back and implementing an approach that will let you just turn your head and let all the other unconscious processes make the turn for you.

    Framework Fixation Solutions

    How can you avoid the framework fixation crash?
  • Realize framework fixation exists. Be mindful when hitting a tough problem that you may be focusing on a shiny distraction rather than solving a problem.
  • Focus on where you want to go. In whitewater river rafting they teach you not to point to the danger, but instead point to a safe route to avoid the danger. Let's say there's a big hole or a strainer you should know about. Your first reaction is to point to the danger. But that sets up a target fixation problem. You are more likely to hit what is being pointed to than avoid it. So you are taught to point to the safe route to take rather than dangerous route to avoid. This cuts down on a lot of possible mistakes. It's also a good strategy for frameworks. Have a framework in which you do the right thing naturally rather than use a framework in which you can succeed if you manage to navigate the dozens of hidden dangers. Don't be afraid to devote half your neurons to solving this problem.
  • Use your brain to pick the right target. It really sucks to pick a wrong target and crash anyway.
  • Keep your thinking processes simple. Information overload can lead to framework fixation. As situations become more and more complicated it becomes easier and easier to freeze up. Find a way to solve a problem and the right abstraction level.
  • Build up experience through practice. Looking away from a shiny thing is one of the most difficult things in the world to do. Until you experience it it's hard to believe how difficult it can be. Looking away take a lot of conscious effort. Looking away is a sort of muscle built through the experience of looking where you should be going. The more you practice the more you can control the dangerous impulse to look at shiny things. This problem exists at every level of development, it's not just limited to frameworks.

    Related Articles

  • Target Fixation for Paragliders by Joe Bosworth.
  • Driving Review: Target Fixation ... Something Worth Looking At! by Mick Farmer

    Click to read more ...

  • Saturday
    Jun282008

    ID generation schemes

    Hi, Generating unique ids is a common requirements in many projects. Generally, this responsibility is given to Database layer. By using sequences or some other technique. This is a problem for horizontal scalability. What are the Guid generation schemes used in high scalable web sites generally? I have seen use java's SecureRandom class to generate Guid. What are the other methods generally used? Thanks Unmesh

    Click to read more ...

    Wednesday
    Jun112008

    Pyshards aspires to build sharding toolkit for Python

    I've been interested in sharding concepts since first hearing the term "shard" a few years back. My interest had been piqued earlier, the first time I read about Google's original approach to distributed search. It was described as a hashtable-like system in which independent physical machines play the role of the buckets. More recently, I needed the capacity and performance of a Sharded system, but did not find helpful libraries or toolkits which would assist with the configuration for my language of preference these days, which is Python. And, since I had a few weeks on my hands, I decided I would begin the work of creating these tools. The result of my initial work the Pyshards project, a still-incomplete python and MySQL based horizontal partitioning and sharding toolkit. HighScalability.com readers will already know that horizontal partitioning is a data segmenting pattern in which distinct groups of physical row-based datasets are distributed across multiple partitions. When the partitions exist as independent databases and when they exist within a shared-nothing architecture they are known as shards. (Google apparently coined the term shard for such database partitions, and pyshards has adopted it.) The goal is to provide big opportunities for database scalability while maintaining good performance. Sharded datasets can be queried individually (one shard) or collectively (aggregate of all shards). In the spirit of The Zen of Python, Pyshards focuses on one obvious way to accomplish horizontal partitioning, and that is by using a hash/modulo based algorithm. Pyshards provides the ability to reasonably add polynomial capacity (number of original shards squared) without re-balancing (re-sharding). Pyshards is designed with re-sharding in mind (because the time will come when you must re-balance) and provides re-sharding algorithms and tools. Finally, Pyshards aspires to provide a web-based shard monitoring tool so that you can keep an eye on resource capacity. So why publish an incomplete open source project? I'd really prefer to work with others who are interested in this topic instead of working in a vacuum. If you are curious, or think you might want to get involved, come visit the project page, join a mailing list, or add a comment on the WIKI. http://code.google.com/p/pyshards/wiki/Pyshards Devin

    Click to read more ...

    Monday
    Jun092008

    Apple's iPhone to Use a Centralized Push Based Notification Architecture

    Update 2: Hank Williams says iPhone Background Processing: Not Fixed But Halfway There. Excellent analysis of all the reasons you need real background processing. Hey, you can't even build an alarm clock! Hard to believe some commenters say it's not so.. Update: Josh Lowensohn of Webware tells us Why users should be scared of Apple's new notification system. A big item on the iPhone developer iWishlist has been background processing. If you can't write an app to poll for new data in the background how will you keep your even more important non-foreground app in sync? Live from the Apple developer conference we learn the solution is a centralized push based architecture. Here's the relevant MacRumorsLive transcript:

  • Thanking the developers for their hard work. Now talking about how the #1 request has been background support. Apple wants to solve this problem.
  • The wrong solution would be to allow for background processes -- bad for battery life and performance. Poking fun at Windows Mobile's task manager.
  • Apple has come up with a far better solution -- a push notification service available for all developers.
  • When the user quits the application, Apple will push updates from their servers to the iPhone. The developer's servers push the notifications to Apple. These updates can include badges, sounds, and custom messages. This requires just one persistent connection and is extremely scalable.
  • Apple has come up with a far better solution -- a push notification service available for all developers. A poll based architecture is good when system capabilities are relatively symmetric. Clearly mobile phones are restricted along a number of dimensions, the most important being battery power. Having a large number of apps constantly polling for updates sucks down battery power faster than vampires at phlebotomist convention. So Apple's logic is sound. Keep a single connection over which data is pushed and work on the phone is minimized. You also maximize battery life and maximize bandwidth usage because data can be aggregated on the server side and be sent in large chunks rather than a random distribution of small packets. The mechanics of how this works isn't clear. Must all apps needing to push data to a phone become part of Apple's private iPhone cloud? Smart for Apple as it gives them complete control. For sculptors of the ultimate user experience you want total control. Not so good for developers as it's just another garden with a very high wall protecting it.

    Click to read more ...

  • Monday
    Jun092008

    FaceStat's Rousing Tale of Scaling Woe and Wisdom Won

    Lukas Biewald shares a fascinating slam by slam recount of how his FaceStat (upload your picture and be judged by the masses) site was battered by a link on Yahoo's main page that caused an almost instantaneous 650,000 page view jump on their site. Yahoo spends considerable effort making sure its own properties can handle the truly massive flow from the main page. Turning the Great Eye of the Internet towards an unsuspecting newborn site must be quite the diaper ready experience. Theo Schlossnagle eerily prophesized about such events in The Implications of Punctuated Scalabilium for Website Architecture: massive, unexpected and sudden traffic spikes will become more common as a fickle internet seeks ever for new entertainments (my summary). Exactly FaceStat's situation. This is also one of our first exposures to an application written on Merb, a popular Ruby on Rails competitor. For those who think Ruby is the problem, their architecture now serves 100 times the original load. How did our fine FaceStat fellowship fair against Yahoo’s onslaught? Not a lot of details of FaceStat’s architecture are available, so it’s not that kind of post. What interested me is that it’s a timely example of Theo’s traffic spike phenomena and I was also taken with how well the team handled the challenge. Few could do better so quickly. In fact, let’s apply Theo’s rubric for how to handle these situations to FaceStat:
  • Be Alert: build automated systems to detect and pinpoint the cause of these issues quickly (in less than 60 seconds). None initially, but they are building in more monitoring to better handle future situations. Better monitoring would have alerted them to the problems long before they actually were alerted. Perhaps many more potential customers might have been converted to actual customers. You can never have enough monitoring!
  • Be Prepared: understand the bottlenecks of your service systemically. As the system was relatively simple, new, and quickly changed, my assumption is they were fully aware of their system’s shortcomings, they were just busy with adding features rather than worrying about performance and scalability.
  • Perform Triage: understand the importance of the various services that make up your site. Definitely. They “started ripping out every database intensive feature” in response to the load.
  • Be Calm: any action that is not analytically driven is a waste of time and energy. They stayed amazingly calm as can be seen from the following quote: “It’s one thing to code scalably and grow slowly under increasing load, but it’s been a blast to crazily rearchitect a live site like FaceStat in a day or two.” I’m not sure how analytically driven they were however  All-in-all an impressive response to the Great Eye’s undivided attention. But not everyone was impressed as I. A commenter named Bernard said: Sorry, but this is a really dumb story. Given how dirt cheap things like slicehost and linode are, it is crazy that you launched a web app and had not already prepared a redundant, highly-scalable architecture… I’d say you were damn lucky that the disappointed users came back at all. Commenter Will thought it was a “Nice problem to be having!” Which it is, of course, being noticed is better than being ignored. But Lukas was spot on when he lamented about being noticed too soon has a downside: After working so hard to get users to come to your site, it’s amazingly frustrating to see hundreds of thousands of people suddenly locked out. Clearly we still don’t have the ability for developers to create scalable systems as simply as they create exploratory systems. Ed from Rackspace posted that they could help with their Auto Scale of Arrays feature. And Rackspace would be an excellent solution, but the cost would be $500/month and a $2500 setup fee. No “let’s put on a show” startup can afford those costs. The mode FaceStat was in is typical: We find that a Rails-like platform is invaluable for rapidly prototyping a new site, especially since we started FaceStat as a pure experiment with no idea whether people would like it or not, and with a very different feature set in mind compared to what it later became. A pay as you grow model is essential for scalability because that’s the only way you can bake scalability in from the start. And even with all the impressive advances in the industry we still don’t have the software infrastructure to make scaling second nature.

    Information Sources

  • Scaling Fast by Lukas Biewald
  • FaceStat scales! on Dlores BLog

    Platform

  • Merb. Ruby based MVC framework that is ORM-agnostic.
  • Thin. A fast and very simple Ruby web server.
  • Slicehost. Hosting service. Able to quickly provision servers as needed.
  • Amazon’s S3. Image server. Latency is high but it handles the load.
  • Capistrano. Automated deployment.
  • Git with github. Source code control system. Supports efficient simultaneous development, quick merging and deployment.
  • God. Server monitoring and management.
  • Memcached. Application caching layer.
  • PostgreSQL

    The Stats

  • Six app servers.
  • One big database machine.

    The Architecture

  • FaceStat is a write heavy application and performs involved calculations on data.
  • S3 is used to offload the responsibility for storing images. This freed them from the massive bandwidth requirements and complexity of managing their own images.
  • Memcached offloads reads from the database to allow the database to have more time for writes.

    Lessons Learned

  • Monitor the site. The sooner you know about a problem the faster it can be fixed. Don't rely on user email or email from exception handlers or you'll never get ahead of problems.
  • Communicate with your users with an error page. A meaningful error pages shows you care and that you are working on the problem. That's enough for a second chance with most people.
  • Use a cached statically generated homepage. Hard to beat that for performance.
  • Big sites might want to give a heads up when they mention smaller sites. Just a short polite email saying how your world will soon turn upside down would do.
  • High-level platform really doesn’t matter compared to overall architecture. How you handle writes, reads, caching, deployment, monitoring, etc are relatively framework independent and it's how you solve those problems that matter.
  • Ruby and Merb supported rapid prototyping to experiment and create a radically different system form the one they intended.

    Click to read more ...

  • Sunday
    Jun082008

    Search fast in million rows

    I have a table .This table has many columns but search performed based on 1 columns ,this table can have more than million rows. The data in these columns is something like funny,new york,hollywood User can search with parameters as funny hollywood .I need to take this 2 words and then search on column whether that column contain this words and how many times .It is not possible to index here .If the results return say 1200 results then without comparing each and every column i can't determine no of results.I need to compare for each and every column.This query is very frequent .How can i approach for this problem.What type of architecture,tools is helpful. I just know that this can be accomplished with distributed system but how can i make this system. I also see in this website that LinkedIn uses Lucene for search .Is Lucene is helpful in my case.My table has also lots of insertion ,however updation in not very frequent.

    Click to read more ...

    Friday
    Jun062008

    GigaOm Structure 08 Conference on June 25th in San Francisco

    If you just can't get enough high scalability talk you might want to take a look GigaOm's Structure 08 conference. The slate of speakers looks appropriately interesting and San Francisco is truly magical this time of year. High Scalability readers even get a price break is you use the HIGHSCALE discount code! I'll be on vacation so I won't see you there, but it looks like a good time. For a nice change of pace consider visiting MoMA next door. Here's a blurb on the conference:

    A reminder to our readers about Structure 08, GigaOm's upcoming
    conference dedicated to web infrastructure. In addition to keynotes
    from leaders like Jim Crowe, chairman and CEO of Level 3
    Communications and Werner Vogels, CTO of Amazon, the event will
    feature workshops from Google App Engine, Microsoft and a special
    workshop from Fenwick and West who will cover how to raise money for
    an infrastructure start up. Learn from the guru's at Amazon, Google,
    Microsoft, Sun, VMWare and more about what the future of internet
    infrastructure is at Structure 08, which will be held on June 25 in
    San Francisco.
    

    Click to read more ...