Re: [ZODB-Dev] [announce] NEO 1.0 - scalable and redundant storage for ZODB
Le 08/29/12 15:54, Leonardo Santagada a écrit : > On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 9:37 AM, Vincent Pelletier wrote: >> We've just tagged the 1.0 NEO release. > > any plans to support pypy in NEO? We're looking at pypy from time to time but there are at least 3 reasons preventing us to use it for NEO: - sqlite3 is still significantly slower on pypy so it could not be used for SQLite backend. I've just tested the example on https://bugs.pypy.org/issue1070 with version 1.9.0 and it's more than 2 times slower and what is suggested on https://bugs.pypy.org/msg3088 does not help. - MySQLdb is C module. We'd have to use another library for MySQL backend but that should be quick to implement. - For the client part, as you say, it depends on ZODB. So it should be possible to use pypy with admin/master/storage nodes and maybe get better performance with MySQL backend. > Once ZODB start to run on pypy it > would be cool to have relstorage/zeo or neo running on it as well. > Julien ___ For more information about ZODB, see http://zodb.org/ ZODB-Dev mailing list - ZODB-Dev@zope.org https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zodb-dev
Re: [ZODB-Dev] [announce] NEO 1.0 - scalable and redundant storage for ZODB
On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 9:37 AM, Vincent Pelletier wrote: > We've just tagged the 1.0 NEO release. any plans to support pypy in NEO? Once ZODB start to run on pypy it would be cool to have relstorage/zeo or neo running on it as well. -- Leonardo Santagada ___ For more information about ZODB, see http://zodb.org/ ZODB-Dev mailing list - ZODB-Dev@zope.org https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zodb-dev
Re: [ZODB-Dev] [announce] NEO 1.0 - scalable and redundant storage for ZODB
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 12:31 PM, Vincent Pelletier wrote: ... > I forgot in the original mail to mention that NEO does all conflict > resolutions on client side rather than server side. The same happens in > relStorage, but this is different from ZEO. That's good. I'd like to move ZEO in this direction. I'd also like to stop hanging conflict-resolution on classes and have some kind of registry, so that people can set CR policies independent of class implementation. I didn't realize that relstorage did client side CR, but thinking about it, it has to work that way, since there's no relstorage server. Jim -- Jim Fulton http://www.linkedin.com/in/jimfulton Jerky is better than bacon! http://zo.pe/Kqm ___ For more information about ZODB, see http://zodb.org/ ZODB-Dev mailing list - ZODB-Dev@zope.org https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zodb-dev
Re: [ZODB-Dev] [announce] NEO 1.0 - scalable and redundant storage for ZODB
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 06:31:05PM +0200, Vincent Pelletier wrote: > On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 16:31:20 +0200, > Martijn Pieters wrote : > > Anything else different? Did you make any performance comparisons > > between RelStorage and NEO? > > I believe the main difference compared to all other ZODB Storage > implementation is the finer-grained locking scheme: in all storage > implementations I know, there is a database-level lock during the > entire second phase of 2PC, whereas in NEO transactions are serialised > only when they alter a common set of objects. This could be a compelling point. I've seen deadlocks in an app that tried to use both ZEO and PostgreSQL via the Storm ORM. (The thread holding the ZEO commit lock was blocked waiting for the PostgreSQL commit to finish, while the PostgreSQL server was waiting for some other transaction to either commit or abort -- and that other transaction couldn't proceed because it was waiting for the ZEO lock.) Marius Gedminas -- People who think, "Oh this is a one-off," need to be offed, or perhaps politely removed from the project. -- George Neville-Neil signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ For more information about ZODB, see http://zodb.org/ ZODB-Dev mailing list - ZODB-Dev@zope.org https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zodb-dev
Re: [ZODB-Dev] [announce] NEO 1.0 - scalable and redundant storage for ZODB
On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 16:31:20 +0200, Martijn Pieters wrote : > Anything else different? Did you make any performance comparisons > between RelStorage and NEO? I believe the main difference compared to all other ZODB Storage implementation is the finer-grained locking scheme: in all storage implementations I know, there is a database-level lock during the entire second phase of 2PC, whereas in NEO transactions are serialised only when they alter a common set of objects. This removes an argument in favour of splitting databases (ie, using mountpoints): evading the tpc_vote..tpc_finish database-level locking. Also, NEO distributes objects over several servers (aka, some or all servers might not contain the whole database), for load balancing/ parallelism purposes. This is not possible if one relies on relational database replication alone. I forgot in the original mail to mention that NEO does all conflict resolutions on client side rather than server side. The same happens in relStorage, but this is different from ZEO. Packing on client side makes it easier to get the setup right: with ZEO you will get more conflicts than normal if it cannot load some class which implements conflict resolution, and this might go unnoticed until someone worries about a performance drop or so. With client-side resolution, if you don't see Broken Objects, conflict resolution for those classes works. Some comments on some points you mentioned: > * NEO supports MySQL and sqlite, RelStorage MySQL, PostgreSQL and > Oracle. It should be rather easy to adapt to more back-ends. We (Nexedi) are not interested in proprietary software, so we will probably not implement Oracle support ourselves. For PostgreSQL, it's just that we do not have a setup at hand and the experience to implement a client properly. I expect that it would not take more than a week to get PostgreSQL implemented by someone used to it and knowing python, but new to NEO. Just to demonstrate that NEO really does not rely on fancy features of SQL servers, you may dig in older revisions in NEO's git repository. You can find a "btree.py"[1] test storage, which is based on ZODB.BTree class. It was just a toy, without persistence support (I initially intended to provide it, but never finished it) and hence limited by the available amount of RAM. But it was otherwise a fully functional NEO storage backend. I think it took me a week-end to put it together, while discovering ZODB.Btree API and adapting NEO's storage backend API along the way (this was the first non-MySQL backend ever implemented, so API was a bit too ad-hoc at that time). sqlite was chosen as a way to get rid of the need to setup a stand-alone SQL server in addition to NEO storage process. We are not sure yet of how well our database schema holds when there are several (10+) GB of data in each storage node. > * RelStorage can act as a BlobStorage, NEO can not. I would like to stress that this has nothing to do with design, rather it's just not implemented. We do not wish to rely on filesystem-level sharing, so we consider something along the lines of providing a FUSE-based to share blob storage, which then can abstract the blobs being distributed over several servers. This is just the general idea, we don't have much experience with blob handling ourselves (which is why we preferred to leave it asides rather than providing an unrealistic - and hence unusable - implementation). [1]http://git.erp5.org/gitweb/neoppod.git/blob/75d83690bd4a34cfe5ed83c949e4a32c7dec7c82:/neo/storage/database/btree.py Regards, -- Vincent Pelletier ERP5 - open source ERP/CRM for flexible enterprises ___ For more information about ZODB, see http://zodb.org/ ZODB-Dev mailing list - ZODB-Dev@zope.org https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zodb-dev
Re: [ZODB-Dev] [announce] NEO 1.0 - scalable and redundant storage for ZODB
2012/8/27 Vincent Pelletier > Hi, > > We've just tagged the 1.0 NEO release. > > ... Release highlights: > - production-ready ! > Is anyone using it in production with Plone 4? Is there performance advantages over ZEO for Plone 4 users? > ... > What you need to know if you are used to ZODB features: > - Blob API is not implemented yet. > For a Plone 4 website that has lots of images, videos and audio files stored in blobstorage, what would be the consequences? There would be any performance drops? Regards, > -- > Vincent Pelletier > ERP5 - open source ERP/CRM for flexible enterprises > > It looks very promising. Thanks. ___ For more information about ZODB, see http://zodb.org/ ZODB-Dev mailing list - ZODB-Dev@zope.org https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zodb-dev
Re: [ZODB-Dev] [announce] NEO 1.0 - scalable and redundant storage for ZODB
On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Vincent Pelletier wrote: > NEO aims at being a replacement for use-cases where ZEO is used, but > with better scalability (by allowing data of a single database to be > distributed over several machines, and by removing database-level > locking), with failure resilience (by mirroring database content among > machines). Under the hood, it relies on simple features of SQL > databases (safe on-disk data structure, efficient memory usage, > efficient indexes). How does NEO compare to RelStorage? NEO appears to implement the storage roughly in the same way; store pickles in tables in a SQL database. Some differences that I can see from reading your email: * NEO takes care of replication itself; RelStorage pushes that responsibility to the database used. * NEO supports MySQL and sqlite, RelStorage MySQL, PostgreSQL and Oracle. * RelStorage can act as a BlobStorage, NEO can not. Anything else different? Did you make any performance comparisons between RelStorage and NEO? -- Martijn Pieters ___ For more information about ZODB, see http://zodb.org/ ZODB-Dev mailing list - ZODB-Dev@zope.org https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zodb-dev
Re: [ZODB-Dev] [announce] NEO 1.0 - scalable and redundant storage for ZODB
On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 14:37:37 +0200, Vincent Pelletier wrote : > Under the hood, it relies on simple features of SQL databases To make things maybe a bit clearer, from the feedback I get: You can forget about SQL presence. NEO usage of SQL is as a relational as a handful of python dicts is. Except there is no way to load only part of a pickled dict, or do range searches (ZODB's BTrees are much better in this regard), or writable to disk atomically without having to implement this level of atomicity ourselves. Ideally, NEO would use something like libhail, or maybe even simpler like kyotocabinet (except that we need composed keys, and kyotocabinet b-trees have AFAIK no such notion). SQL as a data definition language was simply too convenient during development (need a new column ? easy, even if you have a 40GB table), and it stuck - and we have yet to find a significant drawback to implement a new storage backend. As a side effect, SQL allows gathering some statistics over the data contained in a database very efficiently. Number of current objects, number of revisions per object, number of transactions, when transactions occured in base history, average object size, largest object, you name it. -- Vincent Pelletier ERP5 - open source ERP/CRM for flexible enterprises ___ For more information about ZODB, see http://zodb.org/ ZODB-Dev mailing list - ZODB-Dev@zope.org https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zodb-dev
Re: [ZODB-Dev] [announce] NEO 1.0 - scalable and redundant storage for ZODB
On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Vincent Pelletier wrote: > Hi, > > We've just tagged the 1.0 NEO release. > > NEO aims at being a replacement for use-cases where ZEO is used, but > with better scalability (by allowing data of a single database to be > distributed over several machines, and by removing database-level > locking), with failure resilience (by mirroring database content among > machines). Under the hood, it relies on simple features of SQL > databases (safe on-disk data structure, efficient memory usage, > efficient indexes). That sounds pretty cool! ___ For more information about ZODB, see http://zodb.org/ ZODB-Dev mailing list - ZODB-Dev@zope.org https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zodb-dev
