Riak is an open source, distributed database platform based on the principles enumerated in the DynamoDB paper. It uses a simple key/value model for object storage, and it was architected for high availability, fault tolerance, operational simplicity and scalability. A Riak cluster is composed of multiple nodes that are all connected, all communicating and sharing data automatically. If one node were to fail, the other nodes would automatically share the data that the failed node was storing and processing until the node is back up and running or a new node is added. See the diagram below for a simple illustration of how adding a node to a cluster works within Riak.

We will support both the open source and the Enterprise versions of Riak. The open source version is a great place to start. It has all of the database functionality of Riak Enterprise, but it is limited to a single cluster. The Enterprise version supports replication between clusters across data centers, giving you lots of architectural options. You can use replication to build highly available, live-live failover applications. You can also use it to distribute your application’s data across regions, giving you a global platform that you can update anywhere in the world and know that those modifications will be available anywhere else. Riak Enterprise customers also receive 24×7 coverage, both from SoftLayer and Basho. This includes SoftLayer’s one-hour guaranteed response for Severity 1 hardware issues and unlimited support available via our secure web portal, email and phone.

The business use-case for this flexibility is that if you need to scale up or down, nodes can be easily added or taken down as your requirements change. You can opt for a single-data center environment with a few nodes or you can broaden your architecture to a multi-data center deployment with a 40-node cluster. While these capabilities are inherent in Riak, they can be complicated to build and configure, so we spent countless hours working with Basho to streamline Riak deployment on the SoftLayer platform. The fruit of that labor can be found in our Riak Solution Designer:

The server configurations and packages in the Riak Solution Designer have been selected to deliver the performance, availability and stability that our customers expect from their bare metal and virtual cloud infrastructure at SoftLayer. With a few quick clicks, you can order a fully configured Riak environment, and it’ll be provisioned and online for you in two to four hours. And everything you order is on a month-to-month contract.

Thanks to the hard work done by the SoftLayer development group and Basho’s team, we’re proud to be the first in the marketplace to offer a turn-key Riak solution on bare metal infrastructure. You don’t need to sacrifice performance and agility for simplicity.

For more information, visit SoftLayer.com/Riak or contact our sales team.

-Duke

When I shared MongoDB architectural best practices, I referenced a few of the significant optimizations our team worked with 10gen to incorporate into our engineered servers (cheat sheet). To illustrate the impact of these changes in MongoDB performance, we ran 10gen’s recommended benchmarking harness (freely available for download and testing of your own environment) on our three tiers of engineered servers alongside equivalent shared virtual environments commonly deployed by the MongoDB community. We’ve made a pretty big deal about the performance impact of running MongoDB on optimized bare metal infrastructure, so it’s time to put our money where our mouth is.

The Testing Environment

For each of the available SoftLayer MongoDB engineered servers, data sets of 512kb documents were preloaded onto single MongoDB instances. The data sets were created with varying size compared to available memory to allow for data sets that were both larger (2X) and smaller than available memory. Each test also ensured that the data set was altered during the test run frequently enough to prevent the queries from caching all of the data into memory.

Once the data sets were created, JMeter server instances with 4 cores and 16GB of RAM were used to drive ‘benchrun’ from the 10gen benchmarking harness. This diagram illustrates how we set up the testing environment (click for a better look):

These Jmeter servers function as the clients generating traffic on the MongoDB instances. Each client generated random query and update requests with a ratio of six queries per update (The update requests in the test were to ensure that data was not allowed to fully cache into memory and never exercise reads from disk). These tests were designed to create an extreme load on the servers from an exponentially increasing number of clients until the system resources became saturated, and we recorded the resulting performance of the MongoDB application.

At the Medium (MD) and Large (LG) engineered server tiers, performance metrics were run separately for servers using 15K SAS hard drive data mounts and servers using SSD hard drive data mounts. If you missed the post comparing the IOPS statistics between different engineered server hard drive configurations, be sure to check it out. For a better view of the results in a given graph, click the image included in the results below to see a larger version.

Test Case 1: Small MongoDB Engineered Servers vs Shared Virtual Instance

Servers

Tests Performed

Average Read Operations per Second
by Concurrent Client

Peak Read Operations per Second
by Concurrent Client

Average Write Operations per Second
by Concurrent Client

Peak Write Operations per Second
by Concurrent Client

Test Case 2: Medium MongoDB Engineered Servers vs Shared Virtual Instance

Servers (15K SAS Data Mount Comparison)

Tests Performed

Average Read Operations per Second
by Concurrent Client

Peak Read Operations per Second
by Concurrent Client

Average Write Operations per Second
by Concurrent Client

Peak Write Operations per Second
by Concurrent Client

Servers (SSD Data Mount Comparison)

Tests Performed

Average Read Operations per Second
by Concurrent Client

Peak Read Operations per Second
by Concurrent Client

Average Write Operations per Second
by Concurrent Client

Peak Write Operations per Second
by Concurrent Client

Test Case 3: Large MongoDB Engineered Servers vs Shared Virtual Instance

Servers (15K SAS Data Mount Comparison)

Tests Performed

Average Read Operations per Second
by Concurrent Client

Peak Read Operations per Second
by Concurrent Client

Average Write Operations per Second
by Concurrent Client

Peak Write Operations per Second
by Concurrent Client

Servers (SSD Data Mount Comparison)

Tests Performed

Average Read Operations per Second
by Concurrent Client

Peak Read Operations per Second
by Concurrent Client

Average Write Operations per Second
by Concurrent Client

Peak Write Operations per Second
by Concurrent Client

Impressions from Performance Testing

The results speak for themselves. Running a Mongo DB big data solution on a shared virtual environment has significant drawbacks when compared to running MongoDB on a single-tenant bare metal offering. Disk I/O is by far the most limiting resource for MongoDB, and relying on shared network-attached storage (with much lower disk I/O) makes this limitation very apparent. Beyond the average and peak statistics above, performance varied much more significantly in the virtual instance environment, so it’s not as consistent and predictable as a bare metal.

Highlights:

• When a working data set is smaller than available memory, query performance increases.
• The number of clients performing queries has an impact on query performance because more data is being actively cached at a rapid rate.
• The addition of a separate Journal Mount volume significantly improves performance. Because the Small (SM) engineered server does not include a secondary mount for Journals, whenever MongoDB began to journal, the disk I/O associated with journalling was disruptive to the query and update operations performed on the Data Mount.
• The best deployments in terms of operations per second, stability and control were the configurations with a RAID10 SSD Data Mount and a RAID1 SSD Journal Mount. These configurations are available in both our Medium and Large offerings, and I’d highly recommend them.

-Harold

IOPS — Input/Output Operations Per Second — measure computer storage in terms of the number of read and write operations it can perform in a second. IOPS are a primary concern for database environments where content is being written and queried constantly, and when we take those database environments to the extreme (big data), the importance of IOPS can’t be overstated: If you aren’t able perform database reads and writes quickly in a big data environment, it doesn’t matter how many gigabytes, terabytes or petabytes you have in your database … You won’t be able to efficiently access, add to or modify your data set.

As we worked with 10gen to create, test and tweak SoftLayer’s MongoDB engineered servers, our primary focus centered on performance. Since the performance of massively scalable databases is dictated by the read and write operations to that database’s data set, we invested significant resources into maximizing the IOPS for each engineered server … And that involved a lot more than just swapping hard drives out of servers until we found a configuration that worked best. Yes, “Disk I/O” — the amount of input/output operations a given disk can perform — plays a significant role in big data IOPS, but many other factors limit big data performance. How is performance impacted by network-attached storage? At what point will a given CPU become a bottleneck? How much RAM should included in a base configuration to accommodate the load we expect our users to put on each tier of server? Are there operating system changes that can optimize the performance of a platform like MongoDB?

The resulting engineered servers are a testament to the blood, sweat and tears that were shed in the name of creating a reliable, high-performance big data environment. And I can prove it.

Most shared virtual instances — the scalable infrastructure many users employ for big data — use network-attached storage for their platform’s storage. When data has to be queried over a network connection (rather than from a local disk), you introduce latency and more “moving parts” that have to work together. Disk I/O might be amazing on the enterprise SAN where your data lives, but because that data is not stored on-server with your processor or memory resources, performance can sporadically go from “Amazing” to “I Hate My Life” depending on network traffic. When I’ve tested the IOPS for network-attached storage from a large competitor’s virtual instances, I saw an average of around 400 IOPS per mount. It’s difficult to say whether that’s “not good enough” because every application will have different needs in terms of concurrent reads and writes, but it certainly could be better. We performed some internal testing of the IOPS for the hard drive configurations in our Medium and Large MongoDB engineered servers to give you an apples-to-apples comparison.

Before we get into the tests, here are the specs for the servers we’re using:

The numbers shown in the table below reflect the average number of IOPS we recorded with a 100% random read/write workload on each of these engineered servers. To measure these IOPS, we used a tool called fio with an 8k block size and iodepth at 128. Remembering that the virtual instance using network-attached storage was able to get 400 IOPS per mount, let’s look at how our “base” configurations perform:

Clearly, the 400 IOPS per mount results you’d see in SAN-based storage can’t hold a candle to the performance of a physical disk, regardless of whether it’s SAS or SSD. As you’d expect, the “Journal” reads and writes have roughly the same IOPS between all of the configurations because all four configurations use 2 x 64GB SSD drives in RAID1. In both configurations, SSD drives provide better Data mount read/write performance than the 15K SAS drives, and the results suggest that having more physical drives in a Data mount will provide higher average IOPS. To put that observation to the test, I maxed out the number of hard drives in both configurations (10 in the 2U MD server and 34 in the 4U LG server) and recorded the results:

It should come as no surprise that by adding more drives into the configuration, we get better IOPS, but you might be wondering why the results aren’t “betterer” when it comes to the IOPS in the SSD drive configurations. While the IOPS numbers improve going from four to ten drives in the medium engineered server and six to thirty-four drives in the large engineered server, they don’t increase as significantly as the IOPS differences in the SAS drives. This is what I meant when I explained that several factors contribute to and potentially limit IOPS performance. In this case, the limiting factor throttling the (ridiculously high) IOPS is the RAID card we are using in the servers. We’ve been working with our RAID card vendor to test a new card that will open a little more headroom for SSD IOPS, but that replacement card doesn’t provide the consistency and reliability we need for these servers (which is just as important as speed).

There are probably a dozen other observations I could point out about how each result compares with the others (and why), but I’ll stop here and open the floor for you. Do you notice anything interesting in the results? Does anything surprise you? What kind of IOPS performance have you seen from your server/cloud instance when running a tool like fio?

-Kelly

The MongoDB engineered servers that you order from SoftLayer already implement several of the recommendations you’ll see below, and I’ll note which have been incorporated as we go through them. Given the scope of the topic, it’s probably easiest to break down this guide into a few sections to make it a little more digestible. Let’s take a look at the architectural best practices of running MongoDB through the phases of the roll-out process: Selecting a deployment strategy to prepare for your MongoDB installation, the installation itself, and the operational considerations of running it in production.

Deployment Strategy

When planning your MongoDB deployment, you should follow Sun Tzu’s (modified) advice: “If you know the [friend] and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles.” “Friend” was substituted for the “enemy” in this advice because the other party is MongoDB. If you aren’t familiar with MongoDB, the top of your to-do list should be to read MongoDB’s official documentation. That information will give you the background you’ll need as you build and use your database. When you feel comfortable with what MongoDB is all about, it’s time to “know yourself.”

Your most important consideration will be the current and anticipated sizes of your data set. Understanding the volume of data you’ll need to accommodate will be the primary driver for your choice of individual physical nodes as well as your sharding plans. Once you’ve established an expected size of your data set, you need to consider the importance of your data and how tolerant you are of the possibility of lost or lagging data (especially in replicated scenarios). With this information in hand, you can plan and start testing your deployment strategy.

It sounds a little strange to hear that you should test a deployment strategy, but when it comes to big data, you want to make sure your databases start with a strong foundation. You should perform load testing scenarios on a potential deployment strategy to confirm that a given architecture will meet your needs, and there are a few specific areas that you should consider:

Installation

When performing the installation of MongoDB, a few considerations can help create both a stable and performance-oriented solution. 10gen recommends the use CentOS (64-bit) as the base operating system if at all possible. If you try installing MongoDB on a 32-bit operating system, you might run into file size limits that cause issues, and if you feel the urge to install it on Windows, you’ll see performance issues if virtual memory begins to be utilized by the OS to make up for a lack of RAM in your deployment. As a result, 32-bit operating systems and Windows operating systems should be avoided on MongoDB servers. SoftLayer provisions CentOS 6.X 64-bit operating systems by default on all of our MongoDB engineered server deployments.

When you’ve got CentOS 64-bit installed, you should also make the following changes to maximize your performance (all of which are included by default on all SoftLayer engineered servers):

One last tip on installation: Make the Journal and Data volumes be distinct physical volumes. If the Journal and Data directories reside on a single physical volume, flushes to the Journal will interrupt the access of data and provide spikes of high latency within your MongoDB deployment.

Operations

Once a MongoDB deployment has been promoted to production, there are a few recommendations for monitoring and optimizing performance. You should always have the MMS agent running on all MongoDB instances to help monitor the health and performance of your deployment. Additionally, this tool is also very useful if you have 10gen MongoDB Cloud Subscriptions because it provides useful debugging data for the 10gen team during support interactions. In addition to MMS, you can use the mongostat command (mentioned in the deployment section) to see runtime information about the performance of a MongoDB node. If either of these tools flags performance issues, sharding or indexing are first-line options to resolve them:

I know it seems like we’ve covered a lot over the course of this blog post, but this list of best practices is far from exhaustive. If you want to learn more, the MongoDB forums are a great resource to connect with the rest of the MongoDB community and learn from their experiences, and the documentation on MongoDB’s site is another phenomenal resource. The best people to talk to when it comes to questions about MongoDB are the folks at 10gen, so I also highly recommend taking advantage of MongoDB Cloud Subscriptions to get their direct support for your one-off questions and issues.

-Harold

Developers are collectively facing information overload. As storage has become more and more affordable, it’s easier to justify collecting and saving more data. Users are more comfortable with creating and sharing content, and we’re able to track, log and index metrics and activity that previously would have been deleted in consideration of space restraints or cost. As the information age progresses, we are collecting more and more data at an ever-accelerating pace, and we’re sharing that data at an incredible rate.

To understand the different facets of this increased usage and demand, Gartner came up with the three V’s of big data that vary significantly from traditional data requirements: Volume, Velocity and Variety. Larger, more abundant pieces of data (“Volume”) are coming at a much faster speed (“Velocity”) in formats like media and walls of text that don’t easily fit into a column-and-row database structure (“Variety”). Given those equally important factors, many of the biggest players in the IT world have been hard at work to create solutions that provide the scale and speed developers need when they build social, analytics, gaming, financial or medical apps with large data sets.

When we talk about scaling databases here, we’re talking about scaling horizontally across multiple servers rather than scaling vertically by upgrading a single server — adding more RAM, increasing HDD capacity, etc. It’s important to make that distinction because it leads to a unique challenge shared by all distributed computer systems: The CAP Theorem. According to the CAP theorem, a distributed storage system must choose to sacrifice either consistency (that everyone sees the same data) or availability (that you can always read/write) while having partition tolerance (where the system continues to operate despite arbitrary message loss or failure of part of the system occurs).

Let’s take a look at a few of the most common database models, what their strengths are, and how they handle the CAP theorem compromise of consistency v. availability:

Relational Databases

What They Do: Stores data in rows/columns. Parent-child records can be joined remotely on the server. Provides speed over scale. Some capacity for vertical scaling, poor capacity for horizontal scaling. This type of database is where most people start.
Horizontal Scaling: In a relational database system, horizontal scaling is possible via replication — dharing data between redundant nodes to ensure consistency — and some people have success sharding — horizontal partitioning of data — but those techniques add a lot of complexity.
CAP Balance: Prefer consistency over availability.
When to use: When you have highly structured data, and you know what you’ll be storing. Great when production queries will be predictable.
Example Products: Oracle, SQLite, PostgreSQL, MySQL

Document-Oriented Databases

What They Do: Stores data in documents. Parent-child records can be stored in the same document and returned in a single fetch operation with no join. The server is aware of the fields stored within a document, can query on them, and return their properties selectively.
Horizontal Scaling: Horizontal scaling is provided via replication, or replication + sharding. Document-oriented databases also usually support relatively low-performance MapReduce for ad-hoc querying.
CAP Balance: Generally prefer consistency over availability
When to Use: When your concept of a “record” has relatively bounded growth, and can store all of its related properties in a single doc.
Example Products: MongoDB, CouchDB, BigCouch, Cloudant

Key-Value Stores

What They Do: Stores an arbitrary value at a key. Most can perform simple operations on a single value. Typically, each property of a record must be fetched in multiple trips, with Redis being an exception. Very simple, and very fast.
Horizontal Scaling: Horizontal scale is provided via sharding.
CAP Balance: Generally prefer consistency over availability.
When to Use: Very simple schemas, caching of upstream query results, or extreme speed scenarios (like real-time counters)
Example Products: CouchBase, Redis, PostgreSQL HStore, LevelDB

BigTable-Inspired Databases

What They Do: Data put into column-oriented stores inspired by Google’s BigTable paper. It has tunable CAP parameters, and can be adjusted to prefer either consistency or availability. Both are sort of operationally intensive.
Horizontal Scaling: Good speed and very wide horizontal scale capabilities.
CAP Balance: Prefer consistency over availability
When to Use: When you need consistency and write performance that scales past the capabilities of a single machine. Hbase in particular has been used with around 1,000 nodes in production.
Example Products: Hbase, Cassandra (inspired by both BigTable and Dynamo)

Dynamo-Inspired Databases

What They Do: Distributed key/value stores inspired by Amazon’s Dynamo paper. A key written to a dynamo ring is persisted in several nodes at once before a successful write is reported. Riak also provides a native MapReduce implementation.
Horizontal Scaling: Dynamo-inspired databases usually provide for the best scale and extremely strong data durability.
CAP Balance: Prefer availability over consistency,
When to Use: When the system must always be available for writes and effectively cannot lose data.
Example Products: Cassandra, Riak, BigCouch

Each of the database models has strengths and weaknesses, and there are huge communities that support each of the open source examples I gave in each model. If your database is a bottleneck or you’re not getting the flexibility and scalability you need to handle your application’s volume, velocity and variety of data, start looking at some of these “big data” solutions.

Tried any of the above models and have feedback that differs from ours? Leave a comment below and tell us about it!

-@marcalanjones

If you’ve configured an infrastructure to accommodate big data, you know how much of a pain it can be: You choose your hardware, you configure it to run NoSQL, you install an open source NoSQL project that you think will meet your needs, and you keep tweaking your environment to optimize its performance. Assuming you have the resources (and patience) to get everything running efficiently, you’ll wind up with the horizontally scalable database infrastructure you need to handle the volume of content you and your users create and consume. SoftLayer and 10gen are making that process a whole lot easier.

Our new MongoDB solutions take the time and guesswork out of configuring a big data environment. We give you an easy-to-use system for designing and ordering everything you need. You can start with a single server or roll out multiple servers in a single replica set across multiple data centers, and in under two hours, an optimized MongoDB environment is provisioned and ready to be used. I stress that it’s an “optimized” environment because that’s been our key focus. We collaborated with 10gen engineers on hardware and software configurations that provide the most robust performance for MongoDB, and we incorporated many of their MongoDB best practices. The resulting “engineered servers” are big data powerhouses:

From each engineered server base configuration, you can customize your MongoDB server to meet your application’s needs, and as you choose your upgrades from the base configuration, you’ll see the thresholds at which you should consider upgrading other components. As your data set’s size and the number of indexes in your database increase, you’ll need additional RAM, CPU, and storage resources, but you won’t need them in the same proportions — certain components become bottlenecks before others. Sure, you could upgrade all of the components in a given database server at the same rate, but if, say, you update everything when you only need to upgrade RAM, you’d be adding (and paying for) unnecessary CPU and storage capacity.

Using our new Solution Designer, it’s very easy to graphically design a complex multi-site replica set. Once you finalize your locations and server configurations, you’ll click “Order,” and our automated provisioning system will kick into high gear. It deploys your server hardware, installs CentOS (with OS optimizations to provide MongoDB performance enhancements), installs MongoDB, installs MMS (MongoDB Monitoring Service) and configures the network connection on each server to cluster it with the other servers in your environment. A process that may have taken days of work and months of tweaking is completed in less than four hours. And because everything is standardized and automated, you run much less risk of human error.

One of the other massive benefits of working so closely with 10gen is that we’ve been able to integrate 10gen’s MongoDB Cloud Subscriptions into our offering. Customers who opt for a MongoDB Cloud Subscription get additional MongoDB features (like SSL and SNMP support) and support direct from the MongoDB authority. As an added bonus, since the 10gen team has an intimate understanding of the SoftLayer environment, they’ll be able to provide even better support to SoftLayer customers!

You shouldn’t have to sacrifice agility for performance, and you shouldn’t have to sacrifice performance for agility. Most of the “big data” offerings in the market today are built on virtual servers that can be provisioned quickly but offer meager performance levels relative to running the same database on bare metal infrastructure. To get the performance benefits of dedicated hardware, many users have chosen to build, roll out and tweak their own configurations. With our MongoDB offering, you get the on-demand availability and flexibility of a cloud infrastructure with the raw power and full control of dedicated hardware.

If you’ve been toying with the idea of rolling out your own big data infrastructure, life just got a lot better for you.

-Duke

Have you started working with big data? What’s the best method you’ve found to keep it organized and accessible? How do you scale your infrastructure to maintain performance?

-Marc