I've just finished a basic PHP file, that lets indie game developers / application developers store user data, handle user logins, self-deleting variables etc. It all revolves around storage.
I've made systems like this before, but always hit the max_user_connections issue - which I personally can't currently change, as I use a friends hosting - and often free hosting providers limit the max_user_connections anyway. This time, I've made the system fully text file based (each of them holding JSON structures).
The system works fine currently, as it's being tested by only me and another 4/5 users per second. The PHP script basically opens a text file (based upon query arguments), uses json_decode to convert the contents into the relevant PHP structures, then alters and writes back to the file. Again, this works fine at the moment, as there are few users using the system - but I believe if two users attempted to alter a single file at the same time, the person who writes to it last will overwrite the data that the previous user wrote to it.
Using SQL databases always seemed to handle queries quite slowly - even basic queries. Should I try to implement some form of server-side caching system, or possibly file write stacking system? Or should I just attempt to bump up the max_user_connections, and make it fully SQL based?
Are there limits to the number of users that can READ text files per second?
I know game / application / web developers must create optimized PHP storage solutions all the time, but what are the best practices in dealing with traffic?
It seems most hosting companies set the max_user_connections to a fairly low number to begin with - is there any way to alter this within the PHP file?
Here's the current PHP file, if you wish to view it:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/rr5ua4175w3rhw0/storage.php
And here's a forum topic showing the queries:
http://gmc.yoyogames.com/index.php?showtopic=623357
I did plan to release the PHP file, so developers could host it on their own site, but I would like to make it work as well as possible, before doing this.
Many thanks for any help provided.
Dan.
I strongly suggest you not re-invent the wheel. There are many options available for persistent storage. If you don't want to use SQL consider trying out any of the popular "NoSQL" options like MongoDB, Redis, CouchDB, etc. Many smart people have spent many hours solving the problems you are mentioning already, and they are hard at work improving and supporting their software.
Scaling a MySQL database service is outside the scope of this answer, but if you want to throttle up what your database service can handle you need to move out of a shared hosting environment in any case.
"but I believe if two users attempted to alter a single file at the same time, the person who writes to it last will overwrite the data that the previous user wrote to it."
- that is for sure. It even throws an error if the 2nd tries to save while the first has it open.
"Are there limits to the number of users that can READ text files per second?"
- no, but it is pointless to open a file, just for read multiple times. That file needs to be cached in a content management network.
"I know game / application / web developers must create optimized PHP storage solutions all the time, but what are the best practices in dealing with traffic?"
- usually a new database will do a better job than files, starting from the fact that the most often selects are stored in the RAM, the most often .txt files are not. As #oliakaoil read about the DB difference and see what you need.
Related
I am designing a web application which will be doing three things:
1) store some data
2) make user available to view these data
3) from time to time add/remove/change some data
Looks pretty simple, but I would like to minimase usage of server resources by avoiding MySQL and PHP. My main goal is to deliver HTML file for user - posts1.html (posts2.html, posts3.html... (where 1,2,3 are numbers of pages of data)).
Normally, I would create posts.php file, which would send query to database, but my data are changing only three-five times a day, so it would be a huge waste.
Instead, I thought about caching these data, what would spare a lot of server resources, but in this situation there would be some of PHP code involved.
My another idea is to create script that would be creating all HTML files after every change in database and then replace the old ones with them. But what if someone requests page that is replacing right now? It may cause errors, user can get the uncompleted file etc.
However, there is one solution - I could store created HTML files in two directories (A and B) and using .htaccess do something like this (pseudocode):
if ( (HOURS)%2 == 0 )
/postsX.html -> /A/postsX.html
else
/postsX.html -> /B/postsX.html
It would give me enough time to upgrade all files.
I would love to hear what do you think about it and what would you do?
If you dont want to use a full blown MySQL server, use SQLite. It's part of PHP and very lightweight. Then add caching where appropriate. Your other approaches sound like a waste of time to me. Too much effort for too little gain. SQLite and caching is tried and tested.
Besides, you should not worry about waste of resources unless you are running short on them. Your application doesnt sound like it needs scaling at this point. So build the simplest thing that will work.
If you have to have that static pages approach, then put all those files into a symlinked folder. Create a script that generates the static pages into a new folder (either via cron or manual trigger) and then changes the symlink from the old folder to the new folder. This way you don't have to worry about people hitting your site while its generating content.
you should use SQLite with ADODB or any other supported database and implement caching. See the ADODB compatibility list http://phplens.com/lens/adodb/docs-adodb.htm#drivers. The caching feature is really powerful, ADODB is very famous and well documented.
This is something I am really curious about and I do not really understand how is that possible.
So lets say I am the owner of Facebook (ahah) and I have million of people visiting my website every day, thousands and thousands of images, videos, logs etc..
How do I store all this data?
Do I have more databases in different servers around the world and then I connect to them from a single location?
Do I use an internal API system that requests info from other servers where the data is stored?
For example I know that Facebook has a lot of data centers around the world and hundreds of servers..
How do they connect to these servers? Are the profiles stored in different locations and when I connect to my profile, I will then be using that specific server? Or is there one main server that has the support of other hundreds of servers around the world?
Is there a way to use PHP in a way that I will connect to different servers and to different mySQL (???) databases to store and retrieve data whenever I want?
Sorry if this looks like a silly question, but since it could happen a day to work on a successful website, I really want to know what I will have to do, and what is the logic behind.
Thank you very much.
I'll try to answer your (big) question but not from Facebook point of view since their architecture is pretty much known.
First thing you have to know is that you would have to distribute the workload of your web application. Question is how, so in order to determine what's going to be slow, you have to divide your app in segments.
First up is the HTTP server, or the one that accepts all the requests. By going to "www.your-facebook.com", you're contacting a service on an IP. Naturally, you would probably have more than one IP but let's say you have a single entry point.
Now what happens? You have an HTTP server software, let's say Apache and it handles incoming connections. Since Apache creates a thread per connected user, it requires certain amount of memory for that operation. Eventually, it will run out of memory and then shit hits the fan, stuff stops working, your site is unavailable.
Therefore, you have to somehow scale this part of your application that connects your PHP code / MySQL db to people who want to interact with it.
Let's assume you successfully scaled your Apache and you have a cluster of computers which can accept new computers in order to scale-out. You solved your first problem.
Next part is the actual layer that does the work. Accepts input from the user and saves it somewhere (MySQL) and that's the biggest problem you'll have - why?
Due to the database.
Databases store their data on mediums such as hard drives. Hard drives, be it an SSD or mechanical one - are limited by their ability to write or retrieve data. If I'm not mistaken, RAM operates at levels of around 6GB/sec transfer rate. Not to mention that the seek time is also much much lower than HDD's one is.
Therefore, if you have an X amount of users asking for a piece of information and you can only deliver it at a certain rate - your app crashes, or it becomes unresponsive and the layer handling database queries becomes slow since the hardware cannot match the speed at which you need the data.
What are the options here? There are many, I won't mention all of them
Split Reads and Writes. Set your database layer in such a way that you have dedicated machines that write the data and completely different ones that read it. You have to use replication and replication has its own quirks - it never works without breaking.
Optimize handling of your data set by sharding your data. Great for read / write performance, screwed up when you need to query multiple shards and merge the data.
Get better hardware, especially storage (such as FusionIO)
Pay for better storage engine (such as TokuDB)
Alleviate load on the database by using caching. The data that your users request probably doesn't change so often that you have to query the db every single time (say you're viewing someone's profile, what's the chance they'll change it every second?). That's why Facebook uses Memcached extensively - a system that stores small pieces of data in RAM, it's easily scalable and what not. Most important, it's damn quick!
Use different solutions next to MySQL. MySQL (and some other databases) aren't good for every type of data storage or retrieval. Someone mentioned NoSQL before. NoSQL solutions are quick, but still immature. They don't do as much as relational databases do. They use methods of delaying disk write (they keep cached copy of data they need to write in RAM) so that they can achieve fast insert rates. That's why it's not unusual to lose data when using NoSQL.
Topic about MySQL vs "insert database or whatever here" is broad, I don't want to go into that but remember - every single one of data stores out there saves data on the hard drive eventually. The difference (physical of course) is how they optimize their flushing to the disk itself.
I also didn't mention various reports you can run by gathering the data (how many men between 19 and 21 have clicked an advert X between 01:15 and 13:37 CET and such) which is what Facebook is actually gathering (scary stuff!).
Third up - the language gluing the data store (MySQL) and output (HTTP server). PHP.
As you can see, most of the work here is already done by Apache and MySQL. Optimization on PHP level is small, even facebook got small results (they claim 50%, but that's UP TO 50%). I tried HipHop extensively, it is not as fast as it claims to be. Naturally, Facebook guys mentioned that already, so it's no wonder. The advantage they get is because they replaced Apache with their own server built in into HipHop. Some people claim "language X is better than language Y" and they're right, but that's not always the case. Each language has its own advantages and disadvantages.
For example, PHP is widely-spread but it's slow for certain operations (implementing a Trie with over 1 billion entries for example). It's great for things like echo some HTML after parsing the output from the db. It's quick to insert and retrieve data from the database, and that's about 90% of the PHP usage - talk to the db, display the data, end.
Therefore, no matter what language you use (say we used C++ instead of PHP), your bottleneck will be the data storage / retrieval layer.
On the other hand, why is using C++ NOT handy? Because there are more people who know how to use PHP than ones who use C++. It's also MUCH slower to develop web apps in C++. Sure, they will execute faster, but who will notice the difference between 1 millisecond and 1 microsecond?
This post is more like an informative blog post, I know it's not filled with resources to back up my claims but anyone who did any work with larger data sets or websites will know that the P.I.T.A. is always the data storage component. Some things that I said probably won't fit with everyone, but in a NUTSHELL this is how you'd go about optimizing your site.
Unfortunately, your question doesn't have a simple answer. For the MySQL portion of it, you would need to investigate database scale-out. You can start looking at it here: http://www.mysql.com/why-mysql/scaleout/mixi.html. There are a number of different ways to set up Apache/PHP web sites across a server farm. One of them involves setting up round robin DNS. This is adding a DNS record with a number of different IP addresses. Your DNS then hands out a different IP address each time the record is requested so that the load is balanced across a number of servers. You can also set up clustering with MySQL, Apache and Heartbeat, but that is more of a high-availability solution than a scaling solution.
When you have a website with so many users you'll already have enough experience to know the answer of the question, you'll also have a lot of money to pay people to find the optimal architecture of your system.
I'm not saying that what I describe below is the Holy Grail, but it is certainly an option:
You will have a big, fragmented database with lots of backups and you'll have a few name servers which will know the location of servers and some rules about the data stored on each server. When data is searched the query will be sent to a name server which will find the server(s) where the answer can be found for the particular query. I've also upvoted N.B.'s answer, I think he is mostly right.
For lots of users, you should have a server with lots of memory and speed. Configure php.ini to allow more memory usage. A server with lots of users should have 4-12GB available. Also, save resources by closing the desktop environment. If you have this many users, you might want to consider a CDN and also make a database request queue.
I am in the planning stages of writing a CMS for my company. I find myself having to make the choice between saving page contents in a database or in folders on a file system. I have learned that PHP performs admirably well reading and writing to file systems, way better in fact than running SQL queries. But when it comes to saving pages and their data on a file system, there'll be a lot more involved than just reading and writing. Since pages will be drawn using a PHP class, the data for each page will be just data, no HTML. Therefore a parser for the files would have to be written. Also I doubt that all the data from a page will be saved in just one file, it would rather be saved in one directory, with content boxes and data in separated files.
All this would be done so much easier with MySQL, so what I want to ask you experts:
Will all the extra dilly dally with file system saving outweigh it's speed and resource advantage over MySQL?
Thanks for your time.
Go for MySQL. I'd say the only time you should think about using the file system is when you are storing files (BLOBS) of several megabytes, databases (at least the ones you typically use with a php website) are generally less performant when storing that kind of data. For the rest I'd say: always use a relational database. (Assuming you are dealing with data dat has relations of course, if it is random data there is not much benefit in using a relational database ;-)
Addition: If you define your own file-structure, and even your own way of cross referencing files you've already started building a 'database' yourself, that is not bad in itself -- it might be loads of fun! -- but you probably will not get the performance benefits you're looking for unless your situation is radically different than the other 80% of 'standard' websites on the web (a couple of pages with text and images on them). (If you are building google/youtube/flickr/facebook ... you've got a different situation and developing your own unique storage solution starts making sense)
things to consider
race-condition in file write if two user editing same piece of content
distribute file across multiple servers if CMS growth, latency on replication will cause data integrity problem
search performance, grep on files on multiple directory will be very slow
too many files in same directory will cause server performance especially in windows
Assuming you have a low-traffic, single-server environment here…
If you expect to ever have to manage those entries outside of the CMS, my opinion is that it's much, much easier to do so with existing tools than with database access tools.
For example, there's huge value in being able to use awk, grep, sed, sort, uniq, etc. on textual data. Proxying that through a database makes this hard but not impossible.
Of course, this is just opinion based on experience.
S
Storing Data on the filesystem may be faster for large blobs that are always accessed as one piece of information. When implementing a CMS, you typically don't only have to deal with such blobs but also with structured information that has internal references (like content fields belonging to a certain page that has links to other pages...). SQL-Databases provide an easy way to access structured information, files on your filesystem do not (except of course simple hierarchical structures that can be represented with folders).
So if you wanted to store the structured data of your cms in files, you'd have to use a file format that allows you to save the internal references of your data, e.g. XML. But that means that you would have to parse those files, which is not only a lot of work but also makes the process of accessing the data slow again.
In short, use MySQL
Use a database and you have lots of important properties from the beginning "for free" without inventing them in some suboptimal ways if you go the filesystem way. If you don't want to be constrained to MySQL only you can make use of e.g. the database abstraction layer of the doctrine project.
Additionally you have tools like phpMyAdmin for easy lookup or manipulation of your data versus the texteditor.
Keep in mind that the result of your database queries can almost always be cached in memory or even in the filesystem so you have the benefit of easier management with well known tools and similar performance.
When it comes to minor modifications of website contents (eg. fixing a typo or updating external links), I find it much easier to connect to the server using SSH and use various tools (text editors, grep etc.) on files, rather than I having to use CMS interface to update each file manually (our CMS has such interface).
Yet there are several questions to analyze and answer, mentioned above - do you plan for scalability, concurrent modification of data etc.
No, it will not be worth it.
And there is no advantage to using the filesystem over a database unless you are the only user on the system (in which the advantage would be lost anyway). As soon as the transactions start rolling in and updates cascades to multiple pages and multiple files you will regret that you didn't used the database from the beginning :)
If you are set on using caching, experiment with some of the existing frameworks first. You will learn a lot from it. Maybe you can steal an idea or two for your CMS?
A very flowery title indeed.
I have a PHP web application that is in the form of a web based wizard. A user can run through the wizard and select options, run process (DB queries) etc. They can go backwards and forwards and run process again and again.
I am trying to work out how to best save the state of what users do/did, what process they ran etc. So basically a glorified log that I can pull up later.
How do I save these states or sessions? One option which is being considered by my colleague is using an XML file for each session and to save everything there. My idea is to use a database table to do this.
There are pros and cons for each and I was hoping I could get answers on which option to go for? Suggestiosn of other options that are feasible would be great! Or what kind of questions should I ask myself to choose the right implementation.
Technologies Currently Used
Backend: PHP and MS SQL Server, running on Windows Server 2005
FrontEnd: HTML, CSS, JavaScript (JQuery)
Any help will be greatly appreciated.
EDIT
There will be only one/two/three users per site where this system will be launched. Each site will not be connected in any way. The system can have about 10 to 100 sessions per month.
Using a database is probably the way to go. Just create a simple table, that tracks actions by session id. Don't index anything, as you want inserting rows to be a low-cost operation (you can create a temp table, add indexes, and run reports on it later).
XML files could also work -- you'd want to write a separate file for each sessionid -- but doing analysis will probably be much more straightforward if you can leverage your database's featureset.
If you're talking about a large number of users doing there operations simultaneously, and you'd want to trace their steps, I think it's better to go for a database-oriented approach. The database server can optimize data flow and disk writes, leading to a better concurrent performance than constantly writing files on the disk. You really should try to stress-test the system, whichever you choose, to make sure performance does not suffer in the event of a big load.
I'm creating and app that will rely on a database, and I have all intention on using a flat file db, is there any serious reasons to stay away from this?
I'm using mimesis (http://mimesis.110mb.com)
it's simpler than using mySQL, which I have to admit I have little experience with.
I'm wondering about the security of the db. but the files are stored as php and it seems to be a solid database solution.
I really like the ease of backing up and transporting the databases, which I have found harder with mySQL. I see that everyone seems to prefer the mySQL way - and it likely is faster when it comes to queries but other than that is there any reason to stay away from flat-file dbs and (finally) properly learn mysql ?
edit
Just to let people know,
I ended up going with mySQL, and am using the CodeIgniter framework. Still like the flat file db, but have now realized that it's way more complex for this project than necessary.
Use SQLite, you get a database with many SQL features and yet it's only a single file.
Greetings, I'm the creator of Mimesis. Relational databases and SQL are important in situations where you have massive amounts of data that needs to be handled. Are flat files superior to relation databases? Well, you could ask Google, as their entire archiving system works with flat files, and its the most popular search engine on Earth. Does Mimesis compare to their system? Likely not.
Mimesis was created to solve a particular niche problem. I only use free websites for my online endeavors. Plenty of free sites offer the ability to use PHP. However, they don't provide free SQL database access. Therefore, I needed to create a database that would store data, implement locking, and work around file permissions. These were the primary design parameters of Mimesis, and it succeeds on all of those.
If you need an idea of Mimesis's speed, if you navigate to the first page it will tell you what country you're viewing the site from. This free database is taken from the site ip2nation.com and ported into a Mimesis ffdb. It has hundreds if not thousands of entries.
Furthermore, the hit counter on the main page has already tracked over 7000 visitors. These are UNIQUE visits, which means that the script has to search the database to see if the IP address that's visiting already exists, and also performs a count of the total IPs.
If you've noticed the main page loads up pretty quickly and it has two fairly intensive Mimesis database scripts running on the backend. The way Mimesis stores data is done to speed up read and write procedures and also translation procedures. Most ffdb example scripts or other ffdb scripts out there use a simple CVS file or other some such structure for storing data. Mimesis actually interprets binary data at some levels to augment its functionality. Mimesis is somewhat of a hybrid between a flat file database and a relational database.
Most other ffdb scripts involve rewriting the COMPLETE file every time an update is made. Mimesis does not do this, it rewrites only the structural file and updates the actual row contents. So that even if an error does occur you only lose new data that's added, not any of the older data. Mimesis also maintains its history. Unless the table is refreshed the data that rows had previously is still contained within.
I could keep going on about all the features, but this isn't intended as a "Mimesis is the greatest database ever" rant. Moreso, its intended to open people's eyes to the fact that SQL isn't the ONLY technology available, and that flat files, when given proper development paradigms are superior to a relational database, taking into account they are more specialized.
Long live flat files and the coders who brave the headaches that follow.
The answer is "Fine" if you only NEED a flat-file structure. One test: Would a single simple spreadsheet handle all needs? If not, you need a relational structure, not a flat file.
If you're not sure, perhaps you can start flat-file. SQLite is a great app for getting started.
It's not good to learn you made the wrong choice, if you figure it out too far along in the process. But if you understand the importance of a relational structure, and upsize early on if needed, then you are fine.
I really like the ease of backing up
and transporting the databases, which
I have found harder with mySQL.
Use SQLite as mentioned in another answer. There is only one file to backup, or set up periodic dumps of the MySQL databases to SQL files. This is a relatively simple thing to do.
I see that everyone seems to prefer
the mySQL way - and it likely is
faster when it comes to queries
Speed is definitely a consideration. Databases tend to be a lot faster, because the data is organized better.
other than that is there any reason to
stay away from flat-file dbs and
(finally) properly learn mysql ?
There sure are plenty of reasons to use a database solution, but there are arguments to be made for flat files. It is always good to learn things other than what you "usually" use.
Most decisions depend on the application. How many concurrent users are you going to have? Do you need transaction support?
Wanted to inform that Mimesis has moved from the original URL to http://mimesis.site11.com/
Furthermore, I am shifting the focus of Mimesis from an ffdb to a key-value store. It's more sensible Given the types of information I'm storing and the methods I use to retrieve it. There was also a grave error present in the coding of Mimesis (which I've since fixed). However, I'm still in the testing phase of the new key-value store type. I've also been side-tracked by other things. Locking has also been changed from the use of file creation to directory creation as the mutex mechanism.
Interoperability. MySQL can be interfaced by basically any language that counts. Mimesis is unlikely to be usable outside PHP.
This becomes significant the moment you try to use profilers, or modify data from the outside.
You might also look at http://lukeplant.me.uk/resources/flatfile/ for the PHP Flatfile Package.
The issue with going flatfile is that in order to adjust the situation for further development you have to alter a significant amount of code in order to improve the foundation of the system. Whereas if it was a pure SQL system it would require little to no modification to proceed in the future.