Clustering
Analysis of products and issues in database clustering. Relates subjects include:
How immediate consistency works
This post started as a minor paragraph in another one I’m drafting. But it grew. Please also see the comment thread below.
Increasingly many data management systems store data in a cluster, putting several copies of data — i.e. “replicas” — onto different nodes, for safety and reliable accessibility. (The number of copies is called the “replication factor”.) But how do they know that the different copies of the data really have the same values? It seems there are three main approaches to immediate consistency, which may be called:
- Two-phase commit (2PC)
- Read-your-writes (RYW) consistency
- Prudent optimism 🙂
I shall explain.
Two-phase commit has been around for decades. Its core idea is:
- One node commands other nodes (and perhaps itself) to write data.
- The other nodes all reply “Aye, aye; we are ready and able to do that.”
- The first node broadcasts “Make it so!”
Unless a piece of the system malfunctions at exactly the wrong time, you’ll get your consistent write. And if there indeed is an unfortunate glitch — well, that’s what recovery is for.
But 2PC has a flaw: If a node is inaccessible or down, then the write is blocked, even if other parts of the system were able to accept the data safely. So the NoSQL world sometimes chooses RYW consistency, which in essence is a loose form of 2PC: Read more
| Categories: Aster Data, Clustering, Hadoop, HBase, IBM and DB2, Netezza, NoSQL, Teradata, Vertica Systems | 11 Comments |
Thoughts on the next releases of Oracle and Exadata
A reporter asked me to speculate about the next releases of Oracle and Exadata. He and I agreed:
- It seems likely that they’ll be discussed at Oracle OpenWorld in a couple of months.
- Exadata in particular is due for a hardware refresh.
- Oracle12c is a good guess at a name, where “C” is for “Cloud”.
My answers mixed together thoughts on what Oracle should and will emphasize (which aren’t the same thing but hopefully bear some relationship to each other ;)). They were (lightly edited):
- The worst thing about Oracle is the ongoing DBA work for what should be automatic.
- Oracle RAC still makes scale-out too difficult. Presumably, Oracle is looking to build aggressively on recent steps in automating parallelism.
- For Exadata, assume that Oracle is always looking to improve how data gets allocated among disk, flash, and RAM. Look also for Exadata versions with different silicon-disk ratios than are available now.
- Tighter integration among the various appliances is surely a goal, …
- … but I don’t know whether Oracle will pick them apart and let you put various kinds of hardware in the same racks or not. I’d guess against that, because the current set-up gives them a pretext to sell you more capacity than you need.
- I wonder whether Oracle will finally introduce a true columnar storage option, a year behind Teradata. That would be the obvious enhancement on the data warehousing side, if they can pull it off. If they can’t, it’s a damning commentary on the core Oracle codebase.
- Probably Oracle will have something that it portrays as good multi-tenancy support. Some of that could be based on Label Security and so on.
- Anything that makes schema change easier could be a win on the DBA and multi-tenancy sides alike, which would be a nice two-fer.
| Categories: Clustering, Columnar database management, Data warehouse appliances, Data warehousing, Exadata, Oracle, Teradata | 7 Comments |
A data distribution idea at Vertica and Clustrix
Yesterday I wrote:
Clustrix has one cool idea I haven’t heard from anybody else, which I’m calling index distribution. The idea is that each index can be distributed differently across the cluster … i.e. on different distribution keys. Clustrix thinks that paying special attention to index distribution and movement is helpful to the performance of distributed joins.
While that’s true, I thought I’d heard something similar from Vertica; so I checked, and indeed I had. Vertica famously lets you store columns in different sort orders, in both reasonable senses:
- Different columns in a table can be sorted in different ways.
- A single column, which is stored multiple times for usual reasons of replication safety, can be sorted differently in its different copies.
It turns out those columns can also be distributed on different keys as well.
Related link
- Vertica projections explained at length (September, 2011)
| Categories: Clustering, Clustrix, Columnar database management, Vertica Systems | 5 Comments |
Clustrix 4.0 and other Clustrix stuff
It feels like time to write about Clustrix, which I last covered in detail in May, 2010, and which is releasing Clustrix 4.0 today. Clustrix and Clustrix 4.0 basics include:
- Clustrix makes a short-request processing appliance.
- As you might guess from the name, Clustrix is clustered — peer-to-peer, with no head node.
- The Clustrix appliance uses flash/solid-state storage.
- Traditionally, Clustrix has run a MySQL-compatible DBMS.
- Clustrix 4.0 introduces JSON support. More on that below.
- Clustrix 4.0 introduces a bunch of administrative features, and parallel backup.
- Also in today’s announcement is a Rackspace partnership to offer Clustrix remotely, at monthly pricing.
- Clustrix has been shipping product for about 4 years.
- Clustrix has 20 customers in production, running >125 Clustrix nodes total.
- Clustrix has 60 people.
- List price for a (smallest size) Clustrix system is $150K for 3 nodes. Highest-end maintenance costs 15%.
- There’s also a $100K version meant for high availability/disaster recovery. Over half of Clustrix’s customers use off-site disaster recovery.
- Clustrix is raising a C round. Part of it has already been raised from insiders, as a kind of bridge.
The biggest Clustrix installation seems to be 20 nodes or so. Others seem to have 10+. I presume those disaster recovery customers have 6 or more nodes each. I’m not quite sure how the arithmetic on that all works; perhaps the 125ish count of nodes is a bit low.
Clustrix technical notes include: Read more
| Categories: Cloud computing, Clustering, Clustrix, Database compression, Market share and customer counts, MySQL, OLTP, Pricing, Structured documents | 4 Comments |
Memory-centric data management when locality matters
Ron Pressler of Parallel Universe/SpaceBase pinged me about a data grid product he was open sourcing, called Galaxy. The idea is that a distributed RAM grid will allocate data, not randomly or via consistent hashing, but rather via a locality-sensitive approach. Notes include:
- The original technology was developed to track moving objects on behalf of the Israeli Air Force.
- The commercial product is focused on MMO (Massively MultiPlayer Online) games (or virtual worlds).
- The underpinnings are being open sourced.
- Ron suggests that, among other use cases, Galaxy might work well for graphs.
- Ron argues that one benefit is that when lots of things cluster together — e.g. characters in a game — there’s a natural way to split them elastically (shrink the radius for proximity).
- The design philosophy seems to be to adapt as many ideas as possible from the way CPUs manage (multiple levels of) RAM cache.
The whole thing is discussed in considerable detail in a blog post and a especially in a Hacker News comment thread. There’s also an error-riddled TechCrunch article. Read more
| Categories: Cache, Clustering, Games and virtual worlds, GIS and geospatial, Open source, RDF and graphs, Scientific research, Streaming and complex event processing (CEP) | 2 Comments |
Issues in regulatory compliance
From time to time, I hear of regulatory requirements to retain, analyze, and/or protect data in various ways. It’s hard to get a comprehensive picture of these, as they vary both by industry and jurisdiction; so I generally let such compliance issues slide. Still, perhaps I should use one post to pull together what is surely a very partial list.
Most such compliance requirements have one of two emphases: Either you need to keep your customers’ data safe against misuse, or else you’re supposed to supply information to government authorities. From a data management and analysis standpoint, the former area mainly boils down to:
- Information security. This can include access control, encryption, masking, auditing, and more.
- Keeping data in an approved geographical area. (E.g., its country of origin.) This seems to be one of the three big drivers for multi-data-center processing (along with latency and disaster recovery), and hence is an influence upon numerous users’ choices in areas such as clustering and replication.
The latter, however, has numerous aspects.
First, there are many purposes for the data retention and analysis, including but by no means limited to: Read more
| Categories: Archiving and information preservation, Clustering, Data warehousing, Health care, Investment research and trading, Text | 4 Comments |
“Enterprise-ready Hadoop”
This is part of a four-post series, covering:
- Annoying Hadoop marketing themes that should be ignored.
- Hadoop versions and distributions, and their readiness or lack thereof for production.
- In general, how “enterprise-ready” is Hadoop (this post)?
- HBase 0.92.
The posts depend on each other in various ways.
Cloudera, Hortonworks, and MapR all claim, in effect, “Our version of Hadoop is enterprise-ready, unlike those other guys’.” I’m dubious.
- Hortonworks has considerably fewer features than Cloudera, along with less of a production or support track record. (Edit: HCatalog may be a significant exception.)
- I doubt Cloudera really believes or can support the apparent claim in its CDH 4 press release that Hadoop is now suitable for every enterprise, whereas last month it wasn’t.
- While MapR was early with some nice enterprise features, such as high availability or certain management UI elements — quickly imitated in Cloudera Enterprise — I don’t think it has any special status as “enterprise-ready” either.
That said, “enterprise-ready Hadoop” really is an important topic.
So what does it mean for something to be “enterprise-ready”, in whole or in part? Common themes in distinguishing between “enterprise-class” and other software include:
- Usable by our existing staff.
- Sufficiently feature-rich.
- Integrates well with the rest of our environment.
- Fits well into our purchasing and vendor relations model.
- Well-supported.
- Sufficiently reliable, proven, and secure — which is to say, “safe”.
For Hadoop, as for most things, these concepts overlap in many ways. Read more
| Categories: Buying processes, Cloudera, Clustering, Hadoop, HBase, Hortonworks, MapR, MapReduce, Open source | 9 Comments |
Metamarkets’ back-end technology
This is part of a three-post series:
- Introduction to Metamarkets and Druid
- Druid overview
- Metamarkets’ back-end technology (this post)
The canonical Metamarkets batch ingest pipeline is a bit complicated.
- Data lands on Amazon S3 (uploaded or because it was there all along).
- Metamarkets processes it, primarily via Hadoop and Pig, to summarize and denormalize it, and then puts it back into S3.
- Metamarkets then pulls the data into Hadoop a second time, to get it ready to be put into Druid.
- Druid is notified, and pulls the data from Hadoop at its convenience.
By “get data read to be put into Druid” I mean:
- Build the data segments (recall that Druid manages data in rather large segments).
- Note metadata about the segments.
That metadata is what goes into the MySQL database, which also retains data about shards that have been invalidated. (That part is needed because of the MVCC.)
By “build the data segments” I mean:
- Make the sharding decisions.
- Arrange data columnarly within shard.
- Build a compressed bitmap for each shard.
When things are being done that way, Druid may be regarded as comprising three kinds of servers: Read more
Metamarkets Druid overview
This is part of a three-post series:
- Introduction to Metamarkets and Druid
- Druid overview (this post)
- Metamarkets’ back-end technology
My clients at Metamarkets are planning to open source part of their technology, called Druid, which is described in the Druid section of Metamarkets’ blog. The timing of when this will happen is a bit unclear; I know the target date under NDA, but it’s not set in stone. But if you care, you can probably contact the company to get involved earlier than the official unveiling.
I imagine that open-source Druid will be pretty bare-bones in its early days. Code was first checked in early in 2011, and Druid seems to have averaged around 1 full-time developer since then. What’s more, it’s not obvious that all the features I’m citing here will be open-sourced; indeed, some of the ones I’m describing probably won’t be.
In essence, Druid is a distributed analytic DBMS. Druid’s design choices are best understood when you recall that it was invented to support Metamarkets’ large-scale, RAM-speed, internet marketing/personalization SaaS (Software as a Service) offering. In particular:
- Druid tries to use RAM well.
- Druid tries to stay up all the time.
- Druid has multi-valued fields. (Numeric, but of course you can use encoding tricks to be effectively more general.)
- Druid’s big limitation is to assume that there’s literally only one (denormalized) table per query; you can’t even join to dimension tables.
- SQL is a bit of an afterthought; I would expect Druid’s SQL functionality to be pretty stripped-down out of the gate.
Interestingly, the single-table/multi-valued choice is echoed at WibiData, which deals with similar data sets. However, WibiData’s use cases are different from Metamarkets’, and in most respects the WibiData architecture is quite different from that of Metamarkets/Druid.
Introduction to Cloudant
Cloudant is one of the few NoSQL companies with >100 paying subscription customers. For starters:
- Cloudant’s core software is a fork of CouchDB.
- Cloudant only sells you software as a service.
- More precisely, whether Cloudant offers DBaaS (DataBase as a Service) or PaaS (Platform as a Service) or a “data layer” (Cloudant’s preferred terminology) depends on your taste in buzzwords.
- I gather that Cloudant (the company) wants to handle pretty much all your data management needs. But Cloudant (the product) isn’t there yet, especially on the analytic side.
- Before CouchDB and Membase joined together, Cloudant was positioned as the big(ger) data version of CouchDB.
Company demographics include:
- Cloudant is based in Boston.
- Cloudant started out as a Y Combinator company in 2008, and “got serious” in 2009.
- Cloudant now has ~20 employees.
- Management hires include a couple of former Vertica guys.
The Cloudant guys gave me some customer counts in May that weren’t much higher than those they gave me in February, and seem to have forgotten to correct the discrepancy. Oh well. The latter (probably understated) figures included ~160 paying customers, of which:
- ~100 were multitenant.
- ~60 were single tenant.
- 1 was on-premise (but still managed by Cloudant) because of privacy concerns.
The largest Cloudant deployments seem to be in the 10s of terabytes, across a very low double digit number of servers.
| Categories: Cloudant, Clustering, Couchbase, CouchDB, MapReduce, Market share and customer counts, NoSQL, Pricing, Specific users, Storage | 2 Comments |