I'm building a web server for my application (PHP) with EB (Elastic Beanstalk).
I'm getting confused about Scaling Trigger.
I know what is and how it works.
I'd like to know whats is the best configuration for web server.
My application is restful and in server it runs the backend.
It only returns JSONS data from database (don't work with images or thing like this),
I think it'll use more RAM than CPU.
What kind of configuration do you use in yours severs?
NetworkIn or Out? How to mensure what my server holds on?
My configuration actually:
Environment type: Load balanced, auto scaling
Number instances: 1 - 10
Scale based on Average CPUUtilization
Add instance when > 60
Remove instance when < 20
This is absolutely dependent on your specific scenario. So, my configuration may not be ideal for yours. But, stick to some conventional rules when doing this. If I were you, I would instead check the availability of my configuration, seeing whether instances are successfully set as healthy once they are launched, if auto scaling group launches and removes instances correctly when cloudwatch triggers them. sometimes this may be tradeoff between the CPU percentage and you need to adjust it up or down. This sometimes causes problems, if not set correctly, your auto scaling group ends up launching and removing instances regularly!!
Also, make sure scaling up is a better choice than scaling out in your scenario. sometimes, it is simply better to use more powerful instances than scaling out auxiliary ones.
If you stick to these rules of thumb, you can assure your configuration is an stable one.
(in terms of security, if that's a web server application, see if you need an extra tier of security, for example the WAF layer, whether you want it to be a separate layer, or you want it to be in a separate VPC which receives traffic, analyzes it and then redirects it to a private ELB in the peered VPC, or you simply want to join WAF with your instances.
Or if you are using HTTP/HTTPS ELB request rather than TCP. because HTTP ELB request are more secure as the ELB drop the connection once the client send traffic to ELB and then send a separate header to the backend instances. This removes SYN ATTACK threat! or
cloudfront, as it grows according to the traffic, so no server unavailable DoS threats to your application anymore, and many other tricks which you can come to know via documentation and also the http://en.clouddesignpattern.org/index.php/Main_Page)
good luck!
Related
So I wrote this nice SAAS solution and got some real clients. Now a request was made by a client to add some functionality that requires websockets.
In order to keep things tidy, I would like to use another server to manage the websockets.
My current stack is an AWS application loadbalancer, behind it two servers - one is the current application server. It's an Apache web server with PHP on it running the application.
The client side is driven by AngularJS.
The second server (which does not exist yet) is going to Nginx, and session will be stored on a third Memcache server.
Websocket and application server are both on the same domain, using different port in order to send the requests to the right server (AWS ELB allows sending requests to different server groups by port). Both the application and websockets will be driven by PHP and Ratchet.
My questions are two:
is for the more experienced developers - does such architecture sounds reasonable (I'm not aiming for 100Ks of concurrent yet - I need a viable and affordable solution aiming to max 5000 concurrents at this stage).
What would be the best way to send requests from the application server (who has the logic to generate the requests) to the websocket server?
Please notice I'm new to websockets so maybe there are much better ways to do this - I'll be grateful for any idea.
I'm in the middle of using Ratchet with a SPA to power a web app. I'm using Traefik as a front-end proxy, but yes, Nginx is popular here, and I'm sure that would be fine. I like Traefik for its ability to seamlessly redirect traffic based on config file changes, API triggers, and configuration changes from the likes of Kubernetes.
I agree with Michael in the comments - using ports for web sockets other than 80 or 443 may cause your users to experience connection problems. Home connections are generally fine on non-standard ports, but public wifi, business firewalls and mobile data can all present problems, and it's probably best not to risk it.
Having done a bit of reading around, your 5,000 concurrent connections is probably something that is going to need OS-level tweaks. I seem to recall 1,024 connections can be done comfortably, but several times that level would need testing (e.g. see here, though note the comment stream goes back a couple of years). Perhaps you could set up a test harness that fires web socket requests at your app, e.g. using two Docker containers? That will give you a way to understand what limits you will run into at this sort of scale.
Your maximum number of concurrent users strikes me that you're working at an absolutely enormous scale, given that any given userbase will usually not all be live at the same time. One thing you can do (and I plan to do the same in my case) is to add a reconnection strategy in your frontend that does a small number of retries, and then pops up a manual reconnect box (Trello does something like this). Given that some connections will be flaky, it is probably a good idea to give some of them a chance to die off, so you're left with fewer connections to manage. You can add an idle timer in the frontend also, to avoid pointlessly keeping unused connections open.
If you want to do some functional testing, consider PhantomJS - I use PHPUnit Spiderling here, and web sockets seems to work fine (I have only tried one at a time so far, mind you).
There are several PHP libraries to send web socket requests. I use Websocket Client for PHP, and it has worked flawlessly for me so far.
I am using Amazon's RDS. I have a single database, and we are getting fairly heavy traffic. I already scaled our EC2 instances without any issues, it's been working great, but I want to loosen the database load by creating:
1 - Write database
2 - Read databases
Obviously, I will have to have multiple connections going on in my script, and reading from one and writing to one is easy enough, but what is the logic for load balancing multiple read databases?
Is there something in Amazon I can setup to do this? Like the load balancing for EC2? Or is this something I have to setup within my scripts automatically?
Technically, I may NOT need 2 read db instances at this time, but surely this is a common thing, right? I would assume this would need to be done, and I was curious about the architecture.
Unfortunately there is no easy way of doing this. Due to the automagically managed nature of RDS, you are at the mercy of amazon and the services they provide. You have a few options though.
1. You stick with RDS and set up a round robin DNS.
This is achieved easiest through route53. You do this by creating multiple CNAME records for each of your read replicas' endpoints. eg db.mydomain.com -> somename.23ui23asdad4r.region.rds.amazonaws.com
Make sure to turn on weighted routing policy and set the weight and "set ID" to the same.
rinse and repeat for each read replica.
http://note.io/1agsSMB
Caveat 1: this is not a true load balancer. This is simply rolling a die and pointing each request to one of your RDS
Caveat 2: There is no way to health check your RDS instances and there is no way to auto-scale the instances either. Unless you do some crazy things with cloud watch trigger scripts to manually add and remove RDS read replicas and update route53.
2. Use a die roll in your application itself.
A really cheap and nasty approach you could try is to create a config for each of your read replicas in CodeIgniter and when you connect to the database you randomly choose one.
Caveats: Same as above but even worse as you will need to update your codeigniter config each time you add or remove a read replica.
3. Spend hours and hours porting your RDS to ec2 instances.
You move your database to EC2 instances. This is perhaps the most difficult solution as you will need to manage ALL of your database tweaking and tuning yourself. On the plus side you will be able to put them in an autoscaling group and behind an internal load balancer in your VPC
RDS cluster provides you two endpoints read and write. If you send the read traffic on read endpoint, AWS will manage load balancing for all read replicas. You can also apply a scaling policy for read replicas.
These options are available for AWS Aurora clusters.
I am building a web-application and have a couple of quick questions. From what I learnt, one should not worry about scalability when initially building the app and should only start worrying when the traffic increases. However, this being my first web-application, I am not quite sure if I should take an approach where I design things in an ad-hoc manner and later "fix" them. I have been reading stories about how people start off with an app that gets millions of users in a week or two. Not that I will face the same situation but I can't help but wonder, how do these people do it?
Currently, I bought a shared hosting account on Lunarpages and that got me started in building and testing the application. However, I am interested in learning how to build the same application in a scalable-manner using the cloud, for instance, Amazon's EC2. From my understanding, I can see a couple of components:
There is a load balancer that first receives requests and then decides where to route each request
This request is then handled by a server replica that then processes the request and updates (if required) the database and sends back the response to the client
If a similar request comes in, then a caching mechanism like memcached kicks into picture and returns objects from the cache
A blackbox that handles database replication
Specifically, I am trying to do the following:
Setting up a load balancer (my homework revealed that HAProxy is one such load balancer)
Setting up replication so that databases can be synchronized
Using memcached
Configuring Apache to work with multiple web servers
Partitioning application to use Amazon EC2 and Amazon S3 (my application is something that will need great deal of storage)
Finally, how can I avoid burning myself when using Amazon services? Because this is just a learning phase, I can probably do with 2-3 servers with a simple load balancer and replication but until I want to avoid paying loads of money accidentally.
I am able to find resources on individual topics but am unable to find something that starts off from the big picture. Can someone please help me get started?
Personally, I think you should be considering how your app will scale initially - as otherwise you'll run into problems down the line.
I'm not saying you need to build it initially as a multi-server system, but if you think you'll need to do it later, be mindful of the concerns now.
In my experience, this includes things like:
Sessions. Unless you use 'sticky' load balancing, you will have to have some way of sharing session state between servers. This probably means storing session data on either shared storage, or in a DB.
File uploads and replication. If you allow users to upload files, or you have a CMS that allows you to upload images/documents, it needs to cater for the fact that these files will also need to find their way onto other nodes in your cluster. However, if you've gone down the shared storage route mentioned above, this should cover it.
DB scalability. If you're using traditional DB servers, you might want to think about how you'll implement scalability at that level. This may mean coding your app so you use one connection string for reads, and another for writes. Then, you are free to implement replication with one master node handling the inserts/updates cascading the changes to read only nodes that handle the bulk of the work.
Middleware. You might even want to go down the route of implementing some kind of message oriented middleware solution to completely hand off business logic functions - this will give you a great level of flexibility in how you wish to scale this business logic layer in the future. Although initially this will be a lot of complication and work for not a great deal of payoff.
Have you considered playing around with VMs first? You can run 2-3 VMs on your local machine and set them up like you would actual servers, they just won't be able to handle real traffic levels. If all you're looking for is the learning experience, it might be an ideal way to go about it.
I recently experienced a flood of traffic on a Facebook app I created (mostly for the sake of education, not with any intention of marketing)
Needless to say, I did not think about scalability when I created the app. I'm now in a position where my meager virtual server hosted by MediaTemple isn't cutting it at all, and it's really coming down to raw I/O of the machine. Since this project has been so educating to me so far, I figured I'd take this as an opportunity to understand the Amazon EC2 platform.
The app itself is created in PHP (using Zend Framework) with a MySQL backend. I use application caching wherever possible with memcached. I've spent the weekend playing around with EC2, spinning up instances, installing the packages I want, and mounting an EBS volume to an instance.
But what's the next logical step that is going to yield good results for scalability? Do I fire up an AMI instance for the MySQL and one for the Apache service? Or do I just replicate the instances out as many times as I need them and then do some sort of load balancing on the front end? Ideally, I'd like to have a centralized database because I do aggregate statistics across all database rows, however, this is not a hard requirement (there are probably some application specific solutions I could come up with to work around this)
I know this is probably not a straight forward answer, so opinions and suggestions are welcome.
So many questions - all of them good though.
In terms of scaling, you've a few options.
The first is to start with a single box. You can scale upwards - with a more powerful box. EC2 have various sized instances. This involves a server migration each time you want a bigger box.
Easier is to add servers. You can start with a single instance for Apache & MySQL. Then when traffic increases, create a separate instance for MySQL and point your application to this new instance. This creates a nice layer between application and database. It sounds like this is a good starting point based on your traffic.
Next you'll probably need more application power (web servers) or more database power (MySQL cluster etc.). You can have your DNS records pointing to a couple of front boxes running some load balancing software (try Pound). These load balancing servers distribute requests to your webservers. EC2 has Elastic Load Balancing which is an alternative to managing this yourself, and is probably easier - I haven't used it personally.
Something else to be aware of - EC2 has no persistent storage. You have to manage persistent data yourself using the Elastic Block Store. This guide is an excellent tutorial on how to do this, with automated backups.
I recommend that you purchase some reserved instances if you decide EC2 is the way forward. You'll save yourself about 50% over 3 years!
Finally, you may be interested in services like RightScale which offer management services at a cost. There are other providers available.
First step is to separate concerns. I'd split off with a separate MySQL server and possibly a dedicated memcached box, depending on how high your load is there. Then I'd monitor memory and CPU usage on each box and see where you can optimize where possible. This can be done with spinning off new Media Temple boxes. I'd also suggest Slicehost for a cheaper, more developer-friendly alternative.
Some more low-budget PHP deployment optimizations:
Using a more efficient web server like nginx to handle static file serving and then reverse proxy app requests to a separate Apache instance
Implement PHP with FastCGI on top of nginx using something like PHP-FPM, getting rid of Apache entirely. This may be a great alternative if your Apache needs don't extend far beyond mod_rewrite and simpler Apache modules.
If you prefer a more high-level, do-it-yourself approach, you may want to check out Scalr (code at Google Code). It's worth watching the video on their web site. It facilities a scalable hosting environment using Amazon EC2. The technology is open source, so you can download it and implement it yourself on your own management server. (Your Media Temple box, perhaps?) Scalr has pre-built AMIs (EC2 appliances) available for some common use cases.
web: Utilizes nginx and its many capabilities: software load balancing, static file serving, etc. You'd probably only have one of these, and it would probably implement some sort of connection to Amazon's EBS, or persistent storage solution, as mentioned by dcaunt.
app: An application server with Apache and PHP. You'd probably have many of these, and they'd get created automatically if more load needed to be handled. This type of server would hold copies of your ZF app.
db: A database server with MySQL. Again, you'd probably have many of these, and more slave instances would get created automatically if more load needed to be handled.
memcached: A dedicated memcached server you can use to have centralized caching, session management, et cetera across all your app instances.
The Scalr option will probably take some more configuration changes, but if you feel your scaling needs accelerating quickly it may be worth the time and effort.
I have a simple question and wish to hear others' experiences regarding which is the best way to replicate images across multiple hosts.
I have determined that storing images in the database and then using database replication over multiple hosts would result in maximum availability.
The worry I have with the filesystem is the difficulty synchronising the images (e.g I don't want 5 servers all hitting the same server for images!).
Now, the only concerns I have with storing images in the database is the extra queries hitting the database and the extra handling i'd have to put in place in apache if I wanted 'virtual' image links to point to database entries. (e.g AddHandler)
As far as my understanding goes:
If you have a script serving up the
images: Each image would require a
database call.
If you display the images inline as
binary data: Which could be done in
a single database call.
To provide external / linkable
images you would have to add a
addHandler for the extension you
wish to 'fake' and point it to your
scripting language (e.g php, asp).
I might have missed something, but I'm curious if anyone has any better ideas?
Edit:
Tom has suggested using mod_rewrite to save using an AddHandler, I have accepted as a proposed solution to the AddHandler issue; however I don't yet feel like I have a complete solution yet so please, please, keep answering ;)
A few have suggested using lighttpd over Apache. How different are the ISAPI modules for lighttpd?
If you store images in the database, you take an extra database hit plus you lose the innate caching/file serving optimizations in your web server. Apache will serve a static image much faster than PHP can manage it.
In our large app environments, we use up to 4 clusters:
App server cluster
Web service/data service cluster
Static resource (image, documents, multi-media) cluster
Database cluster
You'd be surprised how much traffic a static resource server can handle. Since it's not really computing (no app logic), a response can be optimized like crazy. If you go with a separate static resource cluster, you also leave yourself open to change just that portion of your architecture. For instance, in some benchmarks lighttpd is even faster at serving static resources than apache. If you have a separate cluster, you can change your http server there without changing anything else in your app environment.
I'd start with a 2-machine static resource cluster and see how that performs. That's another benefit of separating functions - you can scale out only where you need it. As far as synchronizing files, take a look at existing file synchronization tools versus rolling your own. You may find something that does what you need without having to write a line of code.
Serving the images from wherever you decide to store them is a trivial problem; I won't discuss how to solve it.
Deciding where to store them is the real decision you need to make. You need to think about what your goals are:
Redundancy of hardware
Lots of cheap storage
Read-scaling
Write-scaling
The last two are not the same and will definitely cause problems.
If you are confident that the size of this image library will not exceed the disc you're happy to put on your web servers (say, 200G at the time of writing, as being the largest high speed server-grade discs that can be obtained; I assume you want to use 1U web servers so you won't be able to store more than that in raid1, depending on your vendor), then you can get very good read-scaling by placing a copy of all the images on every web server.
Of course you might want to keep a master copy somewhere too, and have a daemon or process which syncs them from time to time, and have monitoring to check that they remain in sync and this daemon works, but these are details. Keeping a copy on every web server will make read-scaling pretty much perfect.
But keeping a copy everywhere will ruin write-scalability, as every single web server will have to write every changed / new file. Therefore your total write throughput will be limited to the slowest single web server in the cluster.
"Sharding" your image data between many servers will give good read/write scalability, but is a nontrivial exercise. It may also allow you to use cheap(ish) storage.
Having a single central server (or active/passive pair or something) with expensive IO hardware will give better write-throughput than using "cheap" IO hardware everywhere, but you'll then be limited by read-scalability.
Having your images in a database doesn't necessarily mean a database call for each one; you could cache these separately on each host (e.g. in temporary files) when they are retrieved. The source images would still be in the database and easy to synchronise across servers.
You also don't really need to add Apache handlers to serve an image through a PHP script whilst maintaining nice urls- you can make urls like http://server/image.php/param1/param2/param3.JPG and read the parameters through $_SERVER['PATH_INFO'] . You could also remove the 'image.php' portion of the URL (if you needed to) using mod_rewrite.
What you are looking for already exists and is called MogileFS
Target setup involves mogilefsd, replicated mysql databases and lighttd/perlbal for serving files; It will bring you failover, fine grained file replication (for exemple, you can decide to duplicate end-user images on several physical devices, and to keep only one physical instance of thumbnails). Load balancing can also be achieved quite easily.