Re: memory allocation, does memcached play fair ?
What I have devised, and after some load testing appears to be working is a mixed-bag method of solving this. In effect, sessions are stored in the DB. When a returning user comes to hte site, the session data is read from the DB and pushed into the memcache. The memcache key is also stored in an 'active-sessions' DB table. All proceeding session interaction with the user is then done via memcache. When the user stops interacting with us, their session data is returned to the database and removed from the memcache. This return is done by polling the active session table and comparing against data in the memcache, and can be run at a time when usage is low. You may want to look at gearman. It could handle the session writing in the background for you so that your page times would not be delayed. Brian.
Re: memory allocation, does memcached play fair ?
On Jun 15, 1:22 pm, Joseph Engo wrote: Have you tried a bucketing approach ? (Using multiple NFS partitions and/or directories instead of a single giant directory). Yes, we tried that, using an additional 2 levels of dir, and it helped a little, as we can now actual perform 'ls' on the directory(s) ! When we finally ditched NFS for caching, we were at 8 levels of dirs. NFS is a bottle neck waiting to happen. Brian.
Re: memory allocation, does memcached play fair ?
On Jun 15, 1:22 pm, Joseph Engo wrote: > Have you tried a bucketing approach ? (Using multiple NFS partitions > and/or directories instead of a single giant directory). > Yes, we tried that, using an additional 2 levels of dir, and it helped a little, as we can now actual perform 'ls' on the directory(s) ! However, I think there is more to it than appears on the surface. The Snapserver we use as an NFS server comes with GuardianOS, which in turn only offers XFS as a linux filesystem. While XFS is a great filesystem for large files, I think it is a little unhappy with storing millions of tiny 3 - 5k files ...ReiserFS would have been great, but I dont see GuardianOS implementing it, at least until he (Reiser) is out of jail ... My gut is telling me that our issues are a limitation due to the combo of SnapServer, XFS, GuardianOS and NFS3 (which is the only NFS supported in CentOS by default). Fortunately I was not responsible for that messup, as it happened before I joined.! I'll let you know how it goes, when Jmeter slams my new memCache/write- back/MySQL solution Richard > On Jun 15, 2009, at 10:00 AM, tbs wrote: > > > > > David, > > > Thank you for the well thought out reply to my post, I agree with a > > lot of what you said. Our current session handler is actually using > > NFS over RAID on a NAS, however we are finding that due to our > > particular requirements (retain session data indefinitely, unless the > > session file becomes untouched for more than 6 months), that session > > retrieval starts off very very quick over NFS when there are a small > > number of files in the session directory. However, as the number of > > session files passes a couple of million, the NFS bogs down. The end > > result of this is that a page that once took 0.4 seconds to generate > > now takes up to 1.5 seconds to generate. This degradation can occur > > within 3 to 4 weeks of a complete session 'wipe and start again'. As > > one of our business requirements is that we have to deliver all pages > > in less that a second, you can see where a pure NFS/RAID solution is > > failing us. I am totally willing to state for the record that it could > > be our hardware/server/OS setup, but those decisions are way behind us > > now (CentOS/XFS file system, SnapServer with guardianOS as NFS NAS) > > and I must still solve this issue. > > What I have devised, and after some load testing appears to be working > > is a mixed-bag method of solving this. > > In effect, sessions are stored in the DB. When a returning user comes > > to hte site, the session data is read from the DB and pushed into the > > memcache. The memcache key is also stored in an 'active-sessions' DB > > table. All proceeding session interaction with the user is then done > > via memcache. When the user stops interacting with us, their session > > data is returned to the database and removed from the memcache. This > > return is done by polling the active session table and comparing > > against data in the memcache, and can be run at a time when usage is > > low. > > This achieves a couple of things for us: > > The session data retrieval during a user session is very quick > > For most sessions there are only two reads from and one write back to > > the database. In the case where a user session may invoke > 10 page > > views, this reduces the DB interaction by 80%, and the reduction > > increases the more page views we get. > > In the memcache dies, we lose only the immediate data and not the > > complete session use history. > > The software handler automatically switches to a DB solution if the > > memCache server fails to respond, and can adjust when the server comes > > back on line. > > > This system will undergo heavy heavy testing this week, so I will > > report back on how it performed > > > Richard
Re: memory allocation, does memcached play fair ?
Have you tried a bucketing approach ? (Using multiple NFS partitions and/or directories instead of a single giant directory). On Jun 15, 2009, at 10:00 AM, tbs wrote: David, Thank you for the well thought out reply to my post, I agree with a lot of what you said. Our current session handler is actually using NFS over RAID on a NAS, however we are finding that due to our particular requirements (retain session data indefinitely, unless the session file becomes untouched for more than 6 months), that session retrieval starts off very very quick over NFS when there are a small number of files in the session directory. However, as the number of session files passes a couple of million, the NFS bogs down. The end result of this is that a page that once took 0.4 seconds to generate now takes up to 1.5 seconds to generate. This degradation can occur within 3 to 4 weeks of a complete session 'wipe and start again'. As one of our business requirements is that we have to deliver all pages in less that a second, you can see where a pure NFS/RAID solution is failing us. I am totally willing to state for the record that it could be our hardware/server/OS setup, but those decisions are way behind us now (CentOS/XFS file system, SnapServer with guardianOS as NFS NAS) and I must still solve this issue. What I have devised, and after some load testing appears to be working is a mixed-bag method of solving this. In effect, sessions are stored in the DB. When a returning user comes to hte site, the session data is read from the DB and pushed into the memcache. The memcache key is also stored in an 'active-sessions' DB table. All proceeding session interaction with the user is then done via memcache. When the user stops interacting with us, their session data is returned to the database and removed from the memcache. This return is done by polling the active session table and comparing against data in the memcache, and can be run at a time when usage is low. This achieves a couple of things for us: The session data retrieval during a user session is very quick For most sessions there are only two reads from and one write back to the database. In the case where a user session may invoke > 10 page views, this reduces the DB interaction by 80%, and the reduction increases the more page views we get. In the memcache dies, we lose only the immediate data and not the complete session use history. The software handler automatically switches to a DB solution if the memCache server fails to respond, and can adjust when the server comes back on line. This system will undergo heavy heavy testing this week, so I will report back on how it performed Richard
Re: memory allocation, does memcached play fair ?
David, Thank you for the well thought out reply to my post, I agree with a lot of what you said. Our current session handler is actually using NFS over RAID on a NAS, however we are finding that due to our particular requirements (retain session data indefinitely, unless the session file becomes untouched for more than 6 months), that session retrieval starts off very very quick over NFS when there are a small number of files in the session directory. However, as the number of session files passes a couple of million, the NFS bogs down. The end result of this is that a page that once took 0.4 seconds to generate now takes up to 1.5 seconds to generate. This degradation can occur within 3 to 4 weeks of a complete session 'wipe and start again'. As one of our business requirements is that we have to deliver all pages in less that a second, you can see where a pure NFS/RAID solution is failing us. I am totally willing to state for the record that it could be our hardware/server/OS setup, but those decisions are way behind us now (CentOS/XFS file system, SnapServer with guardianOS as NFS NAS) and I must still solve this issue. What I have devised, and after some load testing appears to be working is a mixed-bag method of solving this. In effect, sessions are stored in the DB. When a returning user comes to hte site, the session data is read from the DB and pushed into the memcache. The memcache key is also stored in an 'active-sessions' DB table. All proceeding session interaction with the user is then done via memcache. When the user stops interacting with us, their session data is returned to the database and removed from the memcache. This return is done by polling the active session table and comparing against data in the memcache, and can be run at a time when usage is low. This achieves a couple of things for us: The session data retrieval during a user session is very quick For most sessions there are only two reads from and one write back to the database. In the case where a user session may invoke > 10 page views, this reduces the DB interaction by 80%, and the reduction increases the more page views we get. In the memcache dies, we lose only the immediate data and not the complete session use history. The software handler automatically switches to a DB solution if the memCache server fails to respond, and can adjust when the server comes back on line. This system will undergo heavy heavy testing this week, so I will report back on how it performed Richard
Re: memory allocation, does memcached play fair ?
I'm not following your argument. First off, sessions in general are not a good candidate for caching. Caching is in my opinion best reserved for data that is primarily static, or has a high read to write ratio. Memcache when used to front mysql for example, is preventing the overhead and contention that can occur in the database when you have a lot of selects repeatedly returning the same result set. When you're reading much more frequently than you're writing or changing data, then memcache works great. If you have volatile data as sessions tend to be, then caching now becomes an impediment and added complexity. In the not too distant past, I did implement a custom session handler in php that stores the session data in memcache. While this worked well and was reliable, the problem becomes that if memcached is restarted, all the sessions are lost. If the sessions are inherently file based, a Netapp appliance a good network infrastructure is a great way to go --- the simplicity of NFS with the reliability of RAID 6, and you can get performance limited only by the money you want to spend on the networking --- anywhere from commodity stuff to fiber channel or iscsi SAN. On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 12:08 PM, tbs wrote: > > > I hear you, I hear you, and that is what I wanted to do too. However > it was impossible to get that passed the pointy-headed bosses. In fact > why I wanted to use memCached in the first place was a difficult > enough battle. Our sessions currently are flatfile over NFS ( with > > 10 million page views a month) and NFS has a hotline to tears and 911! > a pure DB solution, with our growth path would have only been a temp > fix and ended up in the same place as NFS. Using memcached+db is > perfect, and if I could have pinched off a small chunk of memory from > all the front end servers and created a nice little pool things would > have been sweet, however 'da management' has [unqualified] > reservations, and so I am forced to do this 'all on one box' method > just to get us going. When it works out perfectly nd I am proven > right, then I get some leverage to spread the memory load across > multiple servers. > oh the joy of engineering versus office politics :( > > Richard > > > > Brian.
Re: memory allocation, does memcached play fair ?
On Jun 10, 2:55 pm, Brian Moon wrote: > > The memcached server will sit on the same box as the MySQL server. > > Given that on any given machine MySQL will try and take as much memory > > as it can, does the invocation of memcached, with a memory allocation > > that exceeds the available memory, cause the OS (linux) to pull the > > difference from the mySql server instance, or does it use swap to make > > up the difference ? > > In other words what would happen if : > > MySQL uses as much memory as you tell it to. Most likely you are > telling MySQL it can use more memory than the system has and therefore > your observation is that is uses all the memory on the system. This is > a common problem. > > To answer your question, it will start to swap stuff from wherever the > kernel thinks it can. Swap is bad. > okay, that makes sense. I can limit the MySQL memory allocation. > > I have 4 GIGs of memory > > 2 GIG are being used by MySQL > > I startup memcached with a memory allocation of 3 GIG. > > That is asinine. Why would you ever do that? You are configuring for > failure. lol - I understand that, it was just a way of presenting a scenario where something wasn't right so you could explain how the kernel would handle it. I would never do that, and you are quite correct, it would be assinine in the extreme! > > > Does memcached ignore the missing GIG, or does it use swap?, or does > > it steal it from MySQL? > > Memcached does not do anything. The kernel manages memory. The kernel > would start to swap things. You will notice this when your server > starts crying and dialing 911. that is what I figured, but thanks for the clarification. > > > CentOS 2.6.18-53.el5PAE - athlon i386 GNU/Linux > > 8 Gig memory > > MySql 5.0.51 > > Memcached allocation 4 GIG > > Why not put memcached on the web servers? That was what it was > originally made to do. You can use a little ram on those boxes to > create a large pool and you don't lose all your sessions from one > restart of memcached. > I hear you, I hear you, and that is what I wanted to do too. However it was impossible to get that passed the pointy-headed bosses. In fact why I wanted to use memCached in the first place was a difficult enough battle. Our sessions currently are flatfile over NFS ( with > 10 million page views a month) and NFS has a hotline to tears and 911! a pure DB solution, with our growth path would have only been a temp fix and ended up in the same place as NFS. Using memcached+db is perfect, and if I could have pinched off a small chunk of memory from all the front end servers and created a nice little pool things would have been sweet, however 'da management' has [unqualified] reservations, and so I am forced to do this 'all on one box' method just to get us going. When it works out perfectly nd I am proven right, then I get some leverage to spread the memory load across multiple servers. oh the joy of engineering versus office politics :( Richard > Brian.
Re: memory allocation, does memcached play fair ?
The memcached server will sit on the same box as the MySQL server. Given that on any given machine MySQL will try and take as much memory as it can, does the invocation of memcached, with a memory allocation that exceeds the available memory, cause the OS (linux) to pull the difference from the mySql server instance, or does it use swap to make up the difference ? In other words what would happen if : MySQL uses as much memory as you tell it to. Most likely you are telling MySQL it can use more memory than the system has and therefore your observation is that is uses all the memory on the system. This is a common problem. To answer your question, it will start to swap stuff from wherever the kernel thinks it can. Swap is bad. I have 4 GIGs of memory 2 GIG are being used by MySQL I startup memcached with a memory allocation of 3 GIG. That is asinine. Why would you ever do that? You are configuring for failure. Does memcached ignore the missing GIG, or does it use swap?, or does it steal it from MySQL? Memcached does not do anything. The kernel manages memory. The kernel would start to swap things. You will notice this when your server starts crying and dialing 911. CentOS 2.6.18-53.el5PAE - athlon i386 GNU/Linux 8 Gig memory MySql 5.0.51 Memcached allocation 4 GIG Why not put memcached on the web servers? That was what it was originally made to do. You can use a little ram on those boxes to create a large pool and you don't lose all your sessions from one restart of memcached. Brian.
memory allocation, does memcached play fair ?
Hi, I would like to use memCache and MySQL to handle PHP sessions in a live environment. Unlike most of the examples out there that employ write-through caching, our sessions change greatly from page view to page view, so write-through would not help and I will be using write- back caching. I am very happy with my testing so far, but have just this question before I put the work into production. The memcached server will sit on the same box as the MySQL server. Given that on any given machine MySQL will try and take as much memory as it can, does the invocation of memcached, with a memory allocation that exceeds the available memory, cause the OS (linux) to pull the difference from the mySql server instance, or does it use swap to make up the difference ? In other words what would happen if : I have 4 GIGs of memory 2 GIG are being used by MySQL I startup memcached with a memory allocation of 3 GIG. Does memcached ignore the missing GIG, or does it use swap?, or does it steal it from MySQL? In real terms, I have the following setup : CentOS 2.6.18-53.el5PAE - athlon i386 GNU/Linux 8 Gig memory MySql 5.0.51 Memcached allocation 4 GIG thanks for any help, best Richard
