Scroll to Top

One of the coolest parts of my job is talking with customers and partners about their production environment challenges around database technology.  A topic of particular interest lately is in-memory database (IMDB) systems and their integration into an existing environment.

The need for speed
Much of the media coverage of IMDB integrations is heavily focused on speed and loaded with terms like real-time processing, on-demand analytics and memory speed.  But zeroing in on the performance benefits comes at the expense of so many other key aspects of IMDBs. The technology needs to be evaluated as a whole.

Granted, in-memory databases can store data structures in DRAM with latency that is measured in nanoseconds. (Latency of disk-based technology, comparatively, is glacial – clocked in milliseconds.)  Depending on the workload and the vendor’s database engine architecture, DRAM processing can improve database performance by as much as 50X-100X.

How durable is it?
Keep in mind that most relational database systems conform to the ACID (Atomicity, Consistency, Isolation, and Durability) properties of transactions. (You can find a more thorough investigation of these properties in this paper – “The Transaction Concept: Virtues and Limitation” – authored by database pioneer Jim Gray.) The matter of relational database system durability naturally raises the question: But how is data protected from DRAM failures when things go haywire and what is the recovery experience like?  Relational databases implement the durable property to prevent problems associated with power loss or hardware failure to ensure transaction information is permanently captured.

The commonly used WAL (Write Ahead Logging) method ensures that the transaction data is written to a log file (persisted on non-volatile storage) before it is committed and subsequently written to a data file (persisted on non-volatile storage). When the database engine restarts after a failure, it switches to recovery mode to read the log file and determine if the transactions should be rolled forward (committed) or rolled back (cancelled), depending on their state at the time of failure.

Current in-memory database systems support durability and their implementations vary by vendor.  Here is a sampling of durability techniques they use:

  • WAL (Write Ahead Logging)
    • Traditional method described above using a log file.
    • Changes are persisted to non-volatile storage that is used for recovery.
  • Replication
    • Data is copied to more than one location, and can be across different nodes.
    • Recovery can be handled using failover to alternate nodes.
  • Snapshots
    • Database snapshots are taken at intervals.
    • Previous snapshots can be used for recovery.
  • Data Tiering
    • Frequently accessed data resides only in in-memory DRAM structures.
    • Archival or less frequently accessed data resides only on non-volatile storage.
    • Replication can be used as well.

Shopping tip: Consider durability when evaluating your options
If changes in your data environment are frequent and require greater persistence and consistency, be sure to also consider durability when evaluating and comparing vendor implementations.  Durability is no less important than query speed.  Different implementations may or may not be a good fit and in some cases might require additional hardware that can increase cost.

It’s easy to get swept away by all the media attention about how in-memory databases deliver blazing performance, but customers often tell me they would gladly give up some performance for rock-solid stability and interoperability.

For our part, LSI enterprise PCIe® flash storage solutions not only perform well but also include DuraClass™ technology, which can increase the endurance, reliability and power efficiency of non-volatile storage used for in-memory database systems.

*Old suitcase by allesok used with permission.

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Views: (1479)


The lifeblood of any online retailer is the speed of its IT infrastructure. Shoppers aren’t infinitely patient. Sluggish infrastructure performance can make shoppers wait precious seconds longer than they can stand, sending them fleeing to other sites for a faster purchase. Our federal government’s halting rollout of the Health Insurance Marketplace website is a glaring example of what can happen when IT infrastructure isn’t solid. A few bad user experiences that go viral can be damaging enough. Tens of thousands can be crippling.  

In hyperscale datacenters, any number of problems including network issues, insufficient scaling and inconsistent management can undermine end users’ experience. But one that hits home for me is the impact of slow storage on the performance of databases, where the data sits. With the database at the heart of all those online transactions, retailers can ill afford to have their tier of database servers operating at anything less than peak performance.

Slow storage undermines database performance
Typically, Web 2.0 and e-commerce companies run relational databases (RDBs) on these massive server-centric infrastructures. (Take a look at my blog last week to get a feel for the size of these hyperscale datacenter infrastructures). If you are running that many servers to support millions of users, you are likely using some kind of open-sourced RDB such as MySQL or other variations. Keep in mind that Oracle 11gR2 likely retails around $30K per core but MSQL is free. But the performance of both, and most other relational databases, suffer immensely when transactions are retrieving data from storage (or disk). You can only throw so much RAM and CPU power at the performance problem … sooner rather than later you have to deal with slow storage.

Almost everyone in industry – Web 2.0, cloud, hyperscale and other providers of massive database infrastructures – is lining up to solve this problem the best way they can. How? By deploying flash as the sole storage for database servers and applications. But is low-latency flash enough? For sheer performance it beats rotational disk hands down. But … even flash storage has its limitations, most notably when you are trying to drive ultra-low latencies for write IOs. Most IO accesses by RDBs, which do the transactional processing, are a mix or read/writes to the storage. Specifically, the mix is 70%/30% reads/writes. These are also typically low q-depth accesses (less than 4). It is those writes that can really slow things down.

PCIe flash reduces write latencies
The good news is that the right PCIe flash technology in the mix can solve the slowdowns. Some interesting PCIe flash technologies designed to tackle this latency problem are on display at AIS this week. DRAM and in particular NVDRAM are being deployed as a tier in front of flash to really tackle those nasty write latencies.

Among other demos, we’re showing how a Nytro™ 6000 series PCIe flash card helps solve the MySQL database performance issues. The typical response time for a small data read (this is what the database will see for a Database IO) from an HDD is 5ms. Flash-based devices such as the Nytro WarpDrive® card can complete the same read in less than 50μs on average during testing, an improvement of several orders-of-magnitude in response time. This response time translates to getting much higher transactions out of the same infrastructure – but with less space (flash is denser) and a lot less power (flash consumes a lot lower power than HDDs).

We’re also showing the Nytro 7000 series PCIe flash cards. They reach even lower write latencies than the 6000 series and very low q-depths.  The 7000 series cards also provide DRAM buffering while maintaining data-integrity even in the event of a power loss.

For online retailers and other businesses, higher database speeds mean more than just faster transactions. They can help keep those cash registers ringing.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Views: (1026)