I have a system created that a user at one of our other locations and on their server inserts a record. That data is then replicated to a central server. Users working on the central server are allowed to edit that record which means I have to lock the editing capabilities at the location the record was created.
However, i would like the creator of the record to be able to edit it so I am thinking about redirecting them across servers to edit the record on the central server. IS that bad practice and why??
The reason I only allow editing on one of the copies of the record is to prevent it from being copied over in replication.....
WE are also considering Bi-directional replication.
It's not a bad practice. Not sure it makes a lot of sense (to me), but you could do it without causing problems, it seems.
But you should consider why are you using replication at all, then. Whatever reasons you come-up with, see how those fit with connecting to your central server. Since the main point of replication is to allow you to operate without connecting to the central server (except when you sync.)
Also consider that replication has some syncing / update options that might help you achieve your goal in a different way.
In a past job life we used SQL Server transactional replication from a central publisher to three subscriber servers. Latency was such that the users clamored for (and received) the ability to update replicated data on the destination servers which resulted in replication failures/conflicts.
It sounds like the overall design to use replication perhaps had not taken into account a desire (or need) to update the subscriber directly. Is is possible to do a quick white board with key players on this?
Related
Our company has people in every catastrophic event here in the U.S. and parts of Canada. An example is they were quite prevalent in Katrina immediately after the event.
We are constructing an application to improve their job in the field which may be either ASP.NET or WPF, and the disconnect requirement makes us believe it will be a WPF application. Our people need to be able to create their jobs, provide all of the insurance and measurement data, and save it as if in the database whether or not the internet is available.
The issue we are trying to get our heads around is that when at catastrophic events our people need to be able to use our new application even when the internet is not available. (They were offline for 3 days in Katrina)
Has anyone else had to address requirements like this and suggestions on how they approached functioning on small-footprint devices while saving data as if they were still connected to the backend services and database? We also have to incorporate security into this as well, and do it well enough that their entered data loads into the connected database without issues.
Our longterm goal is to also provide this application for Android and IPad Tablet devices as well as laptops. Our initial desire for ASP.NET was it gave us an immediate application for the tablet environment. In the old application they have, they run a local server, run remote connections on the tablets and run the application through terminal server. Not pretty. Not pretty.
I feel this is a serious question that is not subjective so hopefully this won't get deleted.
Our current architecture on the server side is Entity Framework with a repository pattern, WCF services to satisfy CRUD requests returning composite data transfer objects, and a proxy for use by the clients.
I'm interested in hearing other developers' input and this design puzzle.
Additional Information Added to the Discussion
Lots of good information provided!!! I'll have to look at Microsoft Sync for sure. For the disconnected database I would be placing only list tables (enumerations) in the initial database. Jobs and, if needed, an item we call dry books, will be added for each client we are helping. (though I hope the internet returns by the time we are cleaning and drying out the homes) These are the tables that would then populate back to the host once we have a stable link. In the case of Katrina we also lost internet connectivity in our offices which meant the office provided no communication relief for days as well.
Last night I realized that our client proxy is the key to everything working! The client remains unaware of the fact that it is online or offline and leaves the synchronization process within that library. We are discovering how much data we are talking about today. I also want to make it clear that ASP.NET was a like-to-have but a thick client (actually WPF with XAML) may end up being our end state.
Now -- for multiple updates. The disconnected work will be going to individual homes by a single franchise. In fact our home office dispatches specific franchises to specific events. So we have a reduced likelihood (if any) of the problem of multiple people updating a record. The reason is that they are creating records for each job (person's home/office/business) and only that one franchise will deal with it. Of course this also means that if they are disconnected for days that the device that creates the job (record of who, where, condition, insurance company, etc) is also the only device that knows of the job. But that can be lived with. In fact we may be able to have a facility to sync the franchise devices on a hub.
I'm looking forward to hearing additional stories of how you've implemented your disconnected environment.
Thanks!!!
Looking at new technology from Microsoft
I was directed to look at a video from TechEd 2012 and thought I might have an answer. The talk was on using ASP.NET and MVC4 along with 2 libraries for disconnected behavior. At first I thought it would be great but then as it continued it worried me quite a bit.
First the use of a javascript backend to support disconnected I/O does not generate confidence. As a compiler guy (and one who wrote two interpretive languages) I really do not like having a critical business model reliant upon interpretive javascript. And script at that! It may be me but it just makes me shudder.
Then they show their "great"(???) programming model having your ViewModel exist as just javascript. I do not care for an application (asp.net and javascript) that can be, and may as well be (for lack of intellisense ) written in notepad.
No offense meant to any asp lovers, but a well written C# program that has been syntactically and type checked gives me stronger confidence in software than something written with a hope and prayer that a class namespace has been properly typed without any means of cross check. I've seen too many hours of debugging looking for a bug that ended up in a huge namespace with transposed ie in it's name. I ran my thought past the other senior developers in my group and we are all in consensus on this technology.
But we continue to look. (I feel this is becoming more of a diary than a question) :)
Looks like a perfect example for Microsoft Sync Framework
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/sync/bb736753.aspx
A comprehensive synchronization platform that enables collaboration
and offline access for applications, services, and devices with
support for any data type, any data store, any transfer protocol, and
any network topology.
I often find that building a lightweight framework to fit my specific needs is more beneficial to me than using an existing one. However, always look at what's available and weigh the pros and cons before making that decision.
I haven't use the Microsoft Sync Framework, but it sounds like that's a good one to research first. If you have Sql Server Standard (or some other version other than the Express version) then replication might also be an option.
If you want to develop your own homegrown solution, then be sure to put lastupdated and dateadded fields on any tables that need to stay in sync. It doesn't 'sound' like your scenario will be burdened by concurrency issues (i.e. if person A and B both modify a field at the same time, who wins?). If that's the case then developing your own lightweight solution will be pretty straightforward.
As Jeremy pointed out, you will need a way to get the changes. In addition to using a web service, you can also use WCF which is similar to a web service in some ways. But my personal bias would be towards just accessing a SQL server remotely over the internet. The downside of that solution is added security concerns, while the upside is decreased development overhead (i.e. faster/easier development now and less maintenance over time). Also, the direct SQL solution is also assuming that this is an internal application... that you're in charge of all development and not working with 3rd parties who need access to your data and wouldn't be allowed to access it this way.
Not really a full answer but too much for a comment.
I have two apps one that synchs one way and the other two way.
I do a one way synch to client for disconnected operation. At the server full SQL Server and at the client Compact Edition. TimeStamp is a prefect for finding any rows that needs to be synched. I also don't copy the whole database as some of the largest table are non nonessential. The common use is the user marks identified records they want to synch.
If synch does what you need great +1 for Jakub. For me I don't have the option to synch the whole MSSQL both based on size and security.
Have another smaller application that synchs two way but in this case it has regions and update are only within the region. So a region only synchs their data and in disconnected mode they can only add new records. Update to an existing records must be performed in connected mode. That was mangeable. In that case MSSQL for the master and used XML for the client.
No news to you but the hard part of a raw synch is that two parties may have added or revised the same record.
I am working with an application where we store our client data in separate SQL databases for each client. So far this has worked great, there was even a case where some bad code selected the wrong customer ids from the database and since the only data in the database belonged to that client, the damage was not as bad as it could have been. My concerns are about the number of databases you realistically have on an SQL Server.
Is there any additional overhead for each new database you create? We we eventually hit a wall where we have just to many databases on one server? The SQL Server specs say you can have something like 32000 databases but is that possible, does anyone have a large number of database on one server and what are the problems you encounter.
Thanks,
Frank
The upper limits are
disk space
memory
maintenance
Examples:
Rebuilding indexes for 32k databases? When?
If 10% of 32k databases each has a active set of 100MB data in memory at one time, you're already at 320GB target server memory
knowing what DB you're connected too
...
The effective limit depends on load, usage, database size etc.
Edit: And bandwidth as Wyatt Barnett mentioned.. I forgot about network, the bottleneck everyone forgets about...
The biggest problem with all the multiple databases is keeping them all in synch as you make schema changes. As far as realistic number of databases you can have and have the system work well, as usual it depends. It depends on how powerful the server is and how large the databases are. Likely you would want to have multiple servers at some point not just because it will be faster for your clients but because it will put fewer clients at risk at one time if something happens to the server. At what point that is, only your company can decide. Certainly if you start getting a lot of time-outs another server might be indicated (or fixing your poor queries might also do it). Big clients will often pay a premium to be on a separate server, so consider that in your pricing. We had one client so paranoid about their data we had to have a separate server that was not even co-located with the other servers. They paid big bucks for that as we had to rent extra space.
ISPs routinely have one database server that is shared by hundreds or thousands of databases.
Architecturally, this is the right call in general. You've seen the first huge advantage--oftentimes, damage can be limited to a single client and you have near zero risk of a client getting into another client's data. But you are missing the other big advantage--you don't have to keep all the clients on the same database server. When you do get big enough that your server is suffering, you can offload clients onto another box entirely with minimal effort.
I'd also bet you'll run out of bandwidth to manage the databases before your server runs out of steam to handle more databases . . .
What you are really asking about is Scalability; Though, ideally setting up 32,000 Databases on one Server is probably not advantageous it is possible (though, not recommended).
Read - http://www.sql-server-performance.com/articles/clustering/massive_scalability_p1.aspx
I know this is an old thread but it's the same structure we've had in place for the past 2 years and current run 1768 databases over 3 servers.
We have the following setup (not included mirrors and so on):
2 web farm servers and 4 content servers
SQL instance just for a master database of customers, which is queried when they access their webpage by the ID to get the server/instance and database name which their data resides on. This is then stored in the authentication ticket.
3 SQL servers to host customer databases on with load spread on creation based on current total number of learners that exist within all databases on each server (quickly calculated by license number field in master database).
On each SQL Server there is a smaller master database setup which contains shared static data that is used by all clients, therefore allowing smaller client databases and quicker updating of the content.
The biggest thing as mentioned above is keeping the database structures synchronises! For this I ended up programming a small .NET windows form that looks up all customers in the master database and you paste code in to execute and it'll loop through getting the database location and executing the SQL you past.
Creating new customers also caused some issues for us, so I ended up programming a management system for our sale people and it create a new database based on a backup of a inactive "blank" database, therefore we have the latest DB without need to re-script the entire database creation script. It then inserts the customer details inside the master database with location of where the database was created and migrates any old data from an old version of our software. All this is done on a separate instance before moving, therefore reducing any SQL locks.
We are now moving to a single database for our next version of the software as database redundancy is near impossible with so many databases! This is a huge thing to consider as SQL creates a couple of waiting tasks which mirror your data per database, once you start multiplying the databases it gets out of hand and the system almost solely is tasked with synchronising and can lock up due to the shear number of threads. See page 30 of Microsoft document below:
SQLCAT's Guide to High Availability Disaster Recovery.pdf
I do however have doubts about moving to a single database, due to some concerns as mentioned above, such as constantly checking in every single procedure that the current customer has access to only their data and also things along the lines of one little issue will now affect every single database, such as table indexing and so on. Also at the minute our customer are spaced over 3 servers, but the single database will mean yes we have redundancy, but if the error was within the database rather than server going down, then that's every single customer down, not just 1 customer database.
All in all, it depends what you're doing and if you are wanting the redundancy; for me, the redundancy is now key and everything else in a perfect world shouldn't happen (such as error which causes errors within the database for everyone). We only started off expecting a hundred or so to move to the system from the old self hosted software and that quickly turned into 200,500,1000,1500... We now have over 750,000 users use our system each year and in August/September we have over 15,000 concurrent users online (expecting to hit 20,000 this year).
Hope that this is of help to someone along the line :-)
Regards
Liam
We are thinking to make some architectural changes in our application, which might affect the technologies we'll be using as a result of those changes.
The change that I'm referring in this post is like this:
We've found out that some parts of our application have common data and common services, so we extracted those into a GlobalServices service, with its own master data db.
Now, this service will probably have its own cache, so that it won't have to retrieve data from the db on each call.
So, when one client makes a call to that service that updates data, other clients might be interested in that change, or not. Now that depends on whether we decide to keep a cache on the clients too.
Meaning that if the clients will have their own local cache, they will have to be notified somehow (and first register for notifications). If not, they will always get the data from the GlobalServices service.
I need your educated advice here guys:
1) Is it a good idea to keep a local cache on the clients to begin with?
2) If we do decide to keep a local cache on the clients, would you use
SqlCacheDependency to notify the clients, or would you use WCF for
notifications (each might have its cons and pros)
Thanks a lot folks,
Avi
I like the sound of your SqlCacheDependency, but I will answer this from a different perspective as I have worked with a team on a similar scenario. We created a master database and used triggers to create XML representations of data that was being changed in the master, and stored it in a TransactionQueue table, with a bit of meta data about what changed, when and who changed it. The client databases would periodically check the queue for items it was interested in, and would process the XML and update it's own tables as necessary.
We also did the same in reverse for the client to update the master. We set up triggers and a TransactionQueue table on the client databases to send data back to the master. This in turn would update all of the other client databases when they next poll.
The nice thing about this is that it is fairly agnostic on client platform, and client data structure, so we were able to use the method on a range of legacy and third party systems. The other great point here is that you can take any of the databases out of the loop (including the master - e.g. connection failure) and the others will still work fine. This worked well for us as our master database was behind our corporate firewall, and the simpler web databases were sitting with our ISP.
There are obviously cons to this approach, like race hazard, so we were careful with the order of transaction processing, error handling, de-duping etc. We also built a management GUI to provide a human interaction layer before important data was changed in the master.
Good luck! Tim
Are there well-known best practices for synchronizing tasks across a server farm? For example if I have a forum based website running on a server farm, and there are two moderators trying to do some action which requires writing to multiple tables in the database, and the requests of those moderators are being handled by different servers in the server farm, how can one implement some locking functionality to ensure that they can't take that action on the same item at the same time?
So far, I'm thinking about using a table in the database to sync, e.g. check the id of the item in the table if doesn't exsit insert it and proceed, otherwise return. Also probably a shared cache could be used for this but I'm not using this at the moment.
Any other way?
By the way, I'm using MySQL as my database back-end.
Your question implies data level concurrency control -- in that case, use the RDBMS's concurrency control mechanisms.
That will not help you if later you wish to control application level actions which do not necessarily map one to one to a data entity (e.g. table record access). The general solution there is a reverse-proxy server that understands application level semantics and serializes accordingly if necessary. (That will negatively impact availability.)
It probably wouldn't hurt to read up on CAP theorem, as well!
You may want to investigate a distributed locking service such as Zookeeper. It's a reimplementation of a Google service that provides very high speed distributed resource locking coordination for applications. I don't know how easy it would be to incorporate into a web app, though.
If all the state is in the (central) database then the database transactions should take care of that for you.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transaction_(database)
It may be irrelevant for you because the question is old, but it still may be useful for others so i'll post it anyway.
You can use a "SELECT FOR UPDATE" db query on a locking object, so you actually use the db for achieving the lock mechanism.
if you use ORM, you can also do that. for example, in nhibernate you can do:
session.Lock(Member, LockMode.Upgrade);
Having a table of locks is a OK way to do it is simple and works.
You could also have the code as a Service on a Single Server, more of a SOA approach.
You could also use the the TimeStamp field with Transactions, if the timestamp has changed since you last got the data you can revert the transaction. So if someone gets in first they have priority.
Recently, I've been reading up on the IRC protocol (RFCs 1459, 2810-2813), and I was thinking of implementing my own server.
I'm not necessarily looking into adhering religiously to the IRC protocol (I'm doing this for fun, after all), but one of the things I do like about it is that a network can consist of multiple servers transparently.
There are a number of things I don't like about the protocol or the IRC specification. The first is that nicknames aren't owned. While services like NickServ exist, they're not part of the official protocol. On the other hand, implementing something like NickServ properly kind of defeats the purpose of distribution (i.e. there'd be one place where NickServ is running, and one data store for it).
I was hoping there'd be a way to manage nicknames on a per-server basis. The problem with this is that if you have two servers that have some registered nicknames, and they then link up, you can have collisions.
Is there a way to avoid this, without using one central data store? That is: is it possible to keep the servers loosely connected (such that they each exist as an independent entity, but can also connect to one another) and maintain uniqueness amongst nicknames?
I realize this question is vague, but I can't think of a better way of wording it. I'm looking more for suggestions than I am for actual yes/no answers. So if anyone has any ideas as to how to accomplish nickname uniqueness in a network while still maintaining server independence, I'd be interested in hearing it. Note that adhering strictly to the IRC protocol isn't at all necessary; I've got no problem changing things to suit my purposes. :)
There's a simple solution if you don't care about strictly implementing an IRC server, but rather implementing a distributed message system that's like IRC, but not exactly IRC.
The simple solution is to use nicknames in the form "nick#host", much like email. So instead of merely being "mipadi", my nickname could be "mipadi#free-memorys-server.net". So I register with just your server, but when your server links up with others to form another a big ole' chat network, you can easily union all the usernames together. There might be a "mipadi" on otherserver.net, but then our nicknames become "mipadi#free-memorys-server.net" and "mipadi#otherserver.net", and everything is cool.
Of course, this deviates a good deal from IRC. :)
They have to be aware of each other. If not, you cannot prevent the sharing of nicknames. If they are, you simply need to transfer updates on the back-end. To prevent simultaneous registrations, you need a transaction system that blocks, requests permission from all other servers, and responds.
To prevent simultaneous registrations during outages, you have no choice but to timestamp the registration, and remove all but the last (or a random for truly simultaneous) registered copy of the nick.
It's not very pretty considering these servers aren't initially merged in the first place.
You could still implement nick ownership without a central instance, if your server instances trust each other.
When a user registers a nick, it is registered with the current server he's connected with
When a server receives a registration that it didn't know of, it forwards that information to all other servers that don't know it yet (might need a smart algorithm to avoid spamming the network)
When a server re-connects to another server then it tries to synchronize the list of registered nicks and which server handles which nick
If there is a collision during that sync, then the older registration is used, and the newer one marked as invalid
If you can't trust your servers, then it'll get a lot harder, as a servers could easily claim every username and even claim the oldest registration for each one.
Since you are trying to come up with something new, the idea that springs to mind, is simply including something unique about the server as part of the nick name when communicating outside of the server. So if you want to message a user on a different server you might have something like user#server
If you don't need them to be completely separate you might want to consider creating some kind of multiple-master replicated database of accounts. Where each server stores a complete copy of the account database, and each server can create new accounts which will be replicated to other servers as possible. You'll probably still have to deal with collisions on occasion though.
While services like NickServ exist, they're not part of the official protocol.
Services are not part of the official protocol because they've nothing to do with the protocol. They're bots with permissions. There's no reason why you couldn't have one running on each server but it does make them harder to maintain.
If you were to go down that path, I would probably suggest the commonly used "multiple master" database replication technique. If one receives a write (in your case, a new user is created or updated, etc) it sends the data to all the other nodes. You'll have to be careful though. If one node is offline when the others get an update, it will need to know to resync on reconnection.
Another technique would be as above but in reverse. Data is only exchanged between nodes when it's needed. Eg if a user tries to log in on a node where there's no data for it, it'll query the others and issue a move order to get all the data to that one node. This is potentially less painful than the replication version but there could be severe problems in netsplits if somebody signs up on a node disconnected from the pack for a duplicate nick.
One technique to nullify the problems of netsplits would be to make chat nodes and their bots netsplit-aware. When they're split, they probably shouldn't allow any write actions... But this could impact on your network if you're splitting lots.
You've also got to ask how secure this might or might not be. IRC network nodes are distributed for performance but they're not "secure". Because of this, service bots are usually run centrally to keep ultimate control over their running. If you distributed the bots and remote node got hacked, they'd potentially have access to the whole user database (depending on the model).