We are using a dynamodb with on-demand capacity mode. We are suddenly seeing few of our requests getting write throttled. During the same time frame there is sudden spike in Write Capacity Units (WCU).
I have checked the incoming traffic/ write request count and it is pretty much the same.
Does this mean the WCU increase is due to increase in item size?
How can I verify the size of my request?
Since our dynamodb is already provisioned in on-demand mode, why is it unable to auto scale and handle the requests given that traffic is pretty much the same.
It's possible
You can return the consumed capacity for each write operation which will allow you to understand which items are consuming more capacity. ReturnConsumedCapacity
On-demand mode tables can throttle for 3 reasons:
You exceed twice your previous peak in 30 mins
You exceed partition hard limit of 1000 WCU / 3000 RCU (hot partition)
You have GSI backoressure where you're GSI has a hot partition
You can enable CloudWatch Contributor Insights to understand if you have a hot key(s).
Related
When you are doing your RU calculations for Cosmos DB, do you need to be calculating the max values of reads, inserts, updates and deletes or the average number per second?
Reason why I ask is because the average documents read (in current mongo db) is around 5500 but the maximum number of documents read (in on second) over my sampling period was 965880.
I have looked through all of Microsoft's documentation on Costing Cosmos DB and there is no clear guidance on whether the figure for RU throughput is average or max
As you said there's no MS document on 'average or max' for setting throughput, in my opinion, both average and max are meaningful, but we also need to look at the most common situation, for example, there's always around 5800 per second, and also usually 4500 per second, the min is 3000 and the max is 9000. 1 RU means '1KB doc read', if we set the max number as the throughput, it's expensive and waste, if we set the average, maybe the system usually 'in debt' as the answer said. That's why I say we also need to consider the 'most common' situation.
By the way, MS provides a web based tool for helping estimate the request unit requirements for typical operations. If admin also don't know the real situation about the database, I think this doc may help, in short for the doc, that says, if you're building a new application or a small application, you can start at the minimum RU/s to avoid over-provisioning in the beginning. After running the application for some time, maybe you can use azure monitor to determine if your traffic pattern is suitable.
To avoid throttling you need to provide the MAX throughput you need in RUs. Also, it depends how frequently you hit the max RUs. There are basically 3 ways to provision RUs- Provisioned throughput, Autoscale & Serverless(Preview).
If you provision standard (manual) RU/s at the entry point of 400 RU/s, you won't be able to consume above 400 RU/s, unless you manually change the throughput. You'll be billed for 400 RU/s at the standard (manual) provisioned throughput rate, per hour.
If you provision autoscale throughput at the entry point of max RU/s of 4000 RU/s, the resource will scale between 400 to 4000 RU/s. Since the autoscale throughput billing rate per RU/s is 1.5x of the standard (manual) rate, for hours where the system has scaled down to the minimum of 400 RU/s, your bill will be higher than if you provisioned 400 RU/s manually. However, with autoscale, at any time, if your application traffic spikes, you can consume up to 4000 RU/s with no user action required. In general, you should weigh the benefit of being able to consume up to the max RU/s at any time with the 1.5x rate of autoscale.
For small applications with a low expected traffic, you can also consider the serverless capacity mode, which bills you as you use.
Use the Azure Cosmos DB capacity calculator to estimate your throughput requirements.
Should definitely go through this and related pages of documentation- https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/cosmos-db/request-units
My Cosmos DB is using Shared Throughput across several containers. I have manually scaled up my Cosmos DB to 70,000 RU/s and I am currently running a large number of requests.
Looking in azure I can see that a portion of my requests are being throttled (returning 429).
To give an idea of numbers around 25k requests return 200 and around 5k requests return 429.
When I follow the warning in the azure portal that says my collection is exceeding provisioned throughput it shows the average throughput is 6.78k RU/s.
I don't understand why when I have 70,000 RU/s that my requests are being throttled when the average throughput is supposedly only 6,780 RU/s.
No other containers are being read or written to, all these requests are made against just one container.
As all these requests are to run a stored procedure they all have a Partition key supplied.
The most likely reason is you have a hot partition that is reaching its allocated throughput before the other partitions are.
For a horizontally scalable database, throughput is allocated across physical partitions (computers) and data is partitioned using a partition key that basically acts as an address to route it to a specific computer to be stored.
Assume I have a collection with three partitions 1, 2, 3 and 30K RU/s. Each one of those will get 10K RU/s allocated to it. If I then run an operation that does a ton of operations on partition 2 and consumes all of it's 10K I'm going to get rate limited (429) even I don't touch partition 1 or 3.
To avoid this you need to pick a partition key that BOTH distributes data as evenly as possible during writes and ideally can also be used to answer queries within one or a small number (bounded) number of partitions, trying to avoid "fan out" queries where queries have to hit every partition.
Now for small collections that only reside on a single physical partition none of this matters because your data is all on a single physical partition. However, as the collection grows larger this causes issues which will prevent the database from scaling fully.
You can learn more here
We had a period of latency in our application that was directly correlated with latency in DynamoDB and we are trying to figure out what caused that latency.
During that time, the consumed reads and consumed writes for the table were normal (much below the provisioned capacity) and the number of throttled requests was also 0 or 1. The only thing that increased was the SuccessfulRequestLatency.
The high latency occurred during a period where we were doing a lot of automatic writes. In our use case, writing to dynamo also includes some reading (to get any existing records). However, we often write the same quantity of data in the same period of time without causing any increased latency.
Is there any way to understand what contributes to an increase in SuccessfulRequest latency where it seems that we have provisioned enough read capacity? Is there any way to diagnose the latency caused by this set of writes to dynamodb?
You can dig deeper by checking the Get Latency and Put Latency in CloudWatch.
As you have already mentioned, there was no throttling, and your writes involve some reading as well, and your writes at other period of time don't cause any latency, you should check for what exactly in read operation is causing this.
Check SuccessfulRequestLatency metric while including the Operation dimension as well. Start with GetItem and BatchGetItem. If that doesn't
help include Scan and Query as well.
High request latency can sometimes happen when DynamoDB is doing an internal failover of one of its storage nodes.
Internally within Dynamo each storage partition has to be replicated across multiple nodes to provide a high level of fault tolerance. Occasionally one of those nodes will fail and a replacement node has to be introduced, and this can result in elevated latency for a subset of affected requests.
The advice I've had from AWS is to use a short timeout and a fast retry (e.g. 100ms) if your use-case is latency-sensitive. It's my understanding that only requests that hit the affected node experience increased latency, so within one or two retries you'll hit a different node and get a successful response, with minimal impact on your overall latency. Obviously it's hard to verify this, because it's not a scenario you can reproduce!
If you've got a support contract with AWS, it's well worth submitting a support ticket from the AWS console when events like this happen. They are usually able to provide an insight into what actually happened.
Note: If you're doing retries, remember to use exponential backoff to reduce the risk of throttling.
I am seeing some throttles on my updates on DynamoDB table. I know that throttle work on per second basis, that peaks above provisioned capacity can be sometimes absorbed, but not guaranteed. I know that one is supposed to evenly distribute the load, which I have not done.
BUT please look at the 1 minute average graphs from metrics; attached. The utilized capacity is way below the provisioned capacity. Where are these throttles coming from? Because all writes went to a particular shard?
There are no batch writes. The workload distribution is something that cannot, easily, control.
DynamoDB is built on the assumption that to get the full potential out of your provisioned throughput your reads and writes must be uniformly distributed over space (hash/range keys) and time (not all coming in at the exact same second).
Based on the allocated throughput on your graphs you are still most likely at one shard, but it is possible that there are two or more shards if you have previously raised the throughput above the current level and lowered it down to what it is at now. While this is something to be mindful of, it likely is not what is causing this throttling behavior directly. If you have a lot of data in your table, over 10 GB then you definitely will have multiple shards. This would mean you likely have a lot of cold data in your table and that may be causing this issue, but that seems less likely.
The most likely issue is that you have some hot keys. Specifically, you have one or just a few records that are receiving a very high number of read or write requests and this is resulting in throttling. Essentially DynamoDB can support massive IOPS for both writes and reads, but you can't apply all of those IOPS to just a few records, they need to be distributed among all of the records uniformly in an ideal situation.
Since the number of throttles you were showing is in the order of magnitude of 10s to 100s it may not be something to worry about. As long as you are using the official AWS SDK it will automatically take care of retries with exponential backoff to retry requests several times before completely giving up.
While it is difficult in many circumstances to control the distribution of reads and writes to a table, it may be worth taking another look at your hash/range key design to make sure it is really optimal for your pattern of reads and writes to the table. Also, for reads you may employ caching through Memcached or Redis, even if the cache expired in just a few minutes or a few seconds to help reduce the impact of hot keys. For writes you would need to look at the logic in the application to make sure there are not any unnecessary writes being performed that could be causing this issue.
One last point related to batch writes: A batch operation in DynamoDB does not reduce the consumed amount of read or writes the different child requests consume, it simply reduces the overhead of making multiple HTTP requests. While batch requests generally help with throughput, they are not useful at reducing the likelihood of throttling in DynamoDB.
Amazon DynamoDB allows the customer to provision the throughput of reads and writes independently. I have read the Amazon Dynamo paper about the system that preceded DynamoDB and read about how Cassandra and Riak implemented these ideas.
I understand how it is possible to increase the throughput of these systems by adding nodes to the cluster which then divides the hash keyspace of tables across more nodes, thereby allowing greater throughput as long as access is relatively random across hash keys. But in systems like Cassandra and Riak this adds throughput to both reads and writes at the same time.
How is DynamoDB architected differently that they are able to scale reads and write independently? Or are they not and Amazon is just charging for them independently even though they essentially have to allocate enough nodes to cover the greater of the two?
You are correct that adding nodes to a cluster should increase the amount of available throughput but that would be on a cluster basis, not a table basis. The DynamoDB cluster is a shared resource across many tables across many accounts. It's like an EC2 node: you are paying for a virtual machine but that virtual machine is hosted on a real machine that is shared among several EC2 virtual machines and depending on the instance type, you get a certain amount of memory, CPU, network IO, etc.
What you are paying for when you pay for throughput is IO and they can be throttled independently. Paying for more throughput does not cause Amazon to partition your table on more nodes. The only thing that cause a table to be partitioned more is if the size of your table grows to the point where more partitions are needed to store the data for your table. The maximum size of the partition, from what I have gathered talking to DynamoDB engineers, is based on the size of the SSDs of the nodes in the cluster.
The trick with provisioned throughput is that it is divided among the partitions. So if you have a hot partition, you could get throttling and ProvisionedThroughputExceededExceptions even if your total requests aren't exceeding the total read or write throughput. This is contrary to what your question ask. You would expect that if your table is divided among more partitions/nodes, you'd get more throughput but in reality it is the opposite unless you scale your throughput with the size of your table.