I just saw the Realm Mobile Platform. I'm curious what kind of redundancy is available outside of users having a full backup locally.
Can you have multiple Realm Object Servers?
It is possible to run multiple Realm Object Servers in various configurations for greater performance or reliability. This advanced functionality is part of the Enterprise Edition.
For the Developer Edition, you can run multiple Realm Object Servers but they all act independent of each other. For example you could split you user data across multiple servers with certain user groups using specific machines.
Related
I have a question about Service Layer(SL):
can I build cluster with several SL servers to load scaling?
Where can I read about it?
Technically you can create all the servesr with any number of server instances (service layers) you want - all running on the same database. That will work just fine.
However there is no built-in load balancing so you would have to handle that on your own.
The most common way of doing this is simply by providing different shortcuts to different groups of users. Each shortcut is linked to their own server instance and thus the users are directed to different servers.
I want to support the users of my Windows 10 desktop application with:
Local Data (not having to perform a fetch from the cloud every time they want new data)
Offline support
Replication with a cloud database
There can potentially be multiple users (in the order of 10-100 but not 1000) simultaneously editing the same database. I would run CouchDb as a service (ie. in a separate process to my app).
To achieve the above I am considering installing CouchDb on each client desktop PC (all replicating to a single main cloud CouchDb instance) together with my application to achieve the above goals.
One of the reasons I am pursuing this line of thinking is that it would allow my application code to mostly just be written in a manner that interacts with local data and the sync/replication (which is probably quite complex) can be taken care of by CouchDb.
I am using CouchDb as a replacement for something that I often see is done by sqlite but I really want the replication ability of CouchDb (which sqlite does not have).
Is the above a scenario in which I can expect CouchDb to perform well or is there something that I am not considering?
We have multiple clients doing this successfully. This is a recommended use-case for CouchDB. The limiting factor will be the cloud vm configuration, but 100s to 1000s of clients should be no problem on a decent vm setup.
CouchDB is sometimes called "A replication protocol with a database attached to it." This sounds appropriate for your use case. However, installing CouchDB (or any external database/service), particularly as part of a client application, isn't necessarily trivial. That doesn't mean it should be avoided--it's just complexity to consider when making a choice.
You might consider lighter-weight options for your client. PouchDB is the go-to solution for web apps, and often mobile apps, as it syncs with CouchDB, but has much lower resource requirements (at the cost of not being multi-tenant). For a desktop app, that may be appropriate.
Ultimately, whether CouchDB (or PouchDB, or PouchDB Server, etc) is appropriate for your use case depends on which trade-offs you're willing to make.
You could say I am a fan of the Realm Mobile Platform. I'm using it and it seems to be working well.
However I am confused with how to operate it going to production. It seems to be deployed only to one server, and even the professional and enterprise editions are working on my single server.
Assuming Realm have thought of this (as Enterprise edition supports 'enterprise scaling) - how does this work if all clients point to my owned server URL?
Another question is how to monitor the load on that server.
Thanks!
The Professional Edition and the Enterprise Edition emit statsd compatible metrics which allow you to track the usage and load on each node in a Realm Object Server cluster. These metrics are also used internally inside the cluster in order to display statistics about the health of the cluster.
We are obviously still adding metrics as we understand more about our customer's use-cases, and fine-tuning the ones that we have.
With regards to the way the clustering works, we are currently implementing this according to an iterative process, where we add more and more features, and more and more resilience to the system with every passing day.
Basically, we have a logical load balancer process, which receives the incoming client connections, and then dispatches that to a node inside the cluster. This logical load balancer can be HA'd and LB'd itself as well, just like you would any regular WS connection handler. Handling many connections these days is easy. It's handling the quadratic merge algorithms that is expensive on the Realm Object Server, which is why the clustering is required for deployments at scale.
I'm developing an application that works distributed, and I have a SQLite database that must be shared between distributed servers.
If I'm in serverA, and change sqlite row, this change must be in the other servers instantly, but if a server were offline and then it came online, it must update all info equal other servers.
I'm trying to develop a HA service with small SQLite databases.
I'm thinking on something like MongoDB or ReThinkDB, due to replication works fine and I have got data independently server online I had.
There are a library or other SQL methodology to share data between servers?
I used the Raft consensus protocol to replicate my SQLite database. You can find the system here:
https://github.com/rqlite/rqlite
Here are some options:
LiteReplica:
It supports master-slave replication for SQLite3 databases using a single master (writable node) and one or many replicas (read-only nodes).
If a device went offline and then it came online, the secondary/slave dbs are updated with the primary/master one incrementally.
LiteSync:
It implements multi-master replication so we can write to the db in any node, even when the device is off-line.
On both we open the database using a modified URI, like this:
“file:/path/to/app.db?replica=master&bind=tcp://0.0.0.0:4444”
AergoLite:
Blockchain based, it has the highest level of security. Stores immutable relational data, secured by a distributed consensus with low resource usage.
Disclosure: I am the author of these solutions
You can synchronize SQLite databases by embedding SymmetricDS in your application. It supports occasionally connected clients, so it will capture changes and sync them when a server comes online. It supports several different database platforms and can be used as a library or as a standalone service.
You can also use CopyCat, which support SQLite as well as a few other database types.
Marmot looks good:
https://github.com/maxpert/marmot
From their docs:
What & Why?
Marmot is a distributed SQLite replicator with leaderless, and eventual consistency. It allows you to build a robust replication between your nodes by building on top of fault-tolerant NATS Jetstream. This means if you are running a read heavy website based on SQLite, you should be easily able to scale it out by adding more SQLite replicated nodes. SQLite is probably the most ubiquitous DB that exists almost everywhere, Marmot aims to make it even more ubiquitous for server side applications by building a replication layer on top.
We have a web-application product that we sell to companies that is hosted at our servers.
The product contains couple of web applications, windows services and SQL server db.
Right now we have only one client that uses our product. We have two servers - one for the web apps and services and other for the db.
In order to add the product to another client, we have to 'duplicate' all the apps and db and run in separately.
As we started expanding and some companies will require more server power then others, I need to plan the servers infrastructure.
Having two servers for each client sounds ridiculous. Hosting costs will be huge. What will happen when I'll have 10 clients? And probably some servers will take more power than others, leaving servers using 30% from their capacity while others use 70%.
One thing I really care about is separating the DB from each product so in case of server compromise, only one db will be at risk.
So... I thought about Virtual Machines...
Does it sounds right?
Do I need two super servers to hold virtual machine instances? (one for web and other for db?)
What about Load balancing / etc..?
Will it require more maintenance time only because I use virtual machines?
Are there any hardware recommendations?
Any help will be appreciated
Many thanks
Virtual Machines is definitely the safest way to separate clients and will allow you the flexibility to allocate a specific percentage of resources to specific clients.
However, using separate processes on the same physical machine will perform better (but not always significantly) and will allow more dynamic use of resources (i.e., if one spikes, it will use the resources it needs). This setup will not allow you to control the resource allocation nearly as easily though. You'll also have to build your own monitoring tools to see and analyze what processes (clients) are using what resources (piggyback on perfmon).
Using separate processes also is dangerous if your application wasn't designed for this. Anywhere the application caches data on the file system or accesses anything besides memory and the database needs to be thoroughly scrubbed to make sure data from clients is not co-mingled or shared.
Separate virtual machines is more work to manage--each one is pretty much like it's own computer. So you have to manage all the VM's plus the physical machine.
You may also want to consider hosting in a more dynamic environment like Amazon AWS or Microsoft's Azure which will allow you to more easily scale up/down as necessary than a VM at a traditional host.