Hello Google Cloud Platform users!
I am interested in a solution for a regular (let's say daily) backup of Datastore/Firestore databases. Typical use: for some reason (bad "manual" operation, bug, whatever), a series of entities have been wrongly modified or destroyed, or the database is corrupted; in that case, the database version from the previous day will be restored.
I know this has been discussed in previous posts, but mostly through gcloud datastore|firestore import|export through files hosted on Google Cloud Storage. The problem is that for large databases (typically for professional applications with thousands and thousands of entities), this approach can take huge time and resources, even if launched in batch during the night (and it can only get worse when the database increases).
A solution that I have thought about would be to copy to another Datastore/Firestore dataset at each upsert, but that seems like overkill, since Datastore/Firestore services already guarantees replica anyway. But most of all: it does not address the issue of unwanted writing or deletion of entities if this second database is 100% synced with the original one...
Are there best practices to backup Datastore/Firestore entities for this use case?
Any (brilliant) idea is welcome!
Thanks.
You can have a look on this project: https://github.com/Zenika/alpine-firestore-backup
I'm a contributor on it, don't hesitate if you have question or if you want new features.
At the moment that function is not available for the datastore/firestore, there is a Feature Request to implement the functionality
https://issuetracker.google.com/133662510
Related
I have a Cloud SQL instance with hundreds of databases, one for each customer. Each database has the same tables in it, but data only for the specific customer.
What I want to do with it, is transform in various ways so to get an overview table with all of the customers. Unfortunately, I cannot seem to find a tool that can iterate over all the databases a Cloud SQL instance has, execute queries and then write that data to BigQuery.
I was really hoping that Dataflow would be the solution but as far as I have tried and looked online, I cannot find a way to make it work. Since I spent a lot of time already on investigating Dataflow, I thought it might be best to ask here.
Currently I am looking at Data Fusion, Datastream, Apache Airflow.
Any suggestions?
Why Dataflow doesn't fit your needs? You could run a query to find out the tables, and then iteratively build the Pipeline/JdbcIO sources/PCollections based on those results.
Beam has a Flatten transform that can join PCollections.
What you are trying to do is one of the use cases why Dataflow Flex Templates was created (to have dynamic DAG creation within Dataflow itself) but that can be pulled without Flex Templates as well.
Airflow can be used for this sort of thing (essentially, you're doing the same task over and over, so with an appropriate operator and a for-loop you can certainly generate a DAG with hundreds of near-identical tasks that export each of your databases).
However, I'd be remiss not to ask: should you?
There may be a really excellent reason why you've created hundreds of databases in one instance, rather than one database with a customer field on each table. Yet if security is paramount, a row level security policy could add an additional element of safety without putting you in this difficult situation. Adding an index over the customer field would allow you to retrieve the appropriate sub-table swiftly (in return for a small speed cost when inserting new rows) so performance also doesn't seem like a reason to do this.
Given that it would then be pretty straightforward to get your data into BigQuery I would be moving heaven and earth to switch over to this setup, if I were you!
I'm using a single node Bigtable cluster for my sample application running on GKE. Autoscaling feature has been incorporated within the client code.
Sometimes I experience slowness (>80ms) for the GET calls. In order to investigate it further, I need some clarity around the following Bigtable behaviour.
I have cached the Bigtable table object to ensure faster GET calls. Is the table object persistent on GKE? I have learned that objects are not persistent on Cloud Function. Do we expect any similar behaviour on GKE?
I'm using service account authentication but how frequently auth tokens get refreshed? I have seen frequent refresh logs for gRPC Java client. I think Bigtable won't be able to serve the requests over this token refreshing period (4-5 seconds).
What if client machine/instance doesn't scale enough? Will it cause slowness for GET calls?
Bigtable client libraries use connection pooling. How frequently connections/channels close itself? I have learned that connections are closed after minutes of inactivity (>15 minutes or so).
I'm planning to read only needed columns instead of entire row. This can be achieved by specifying the rowkey as well as column qualifier filter. Can I expect some performance improvement by not reading the entire row?
According to GCP official docs you can get here the cause of slower performance of Bigtable. I would like to suggest you to go through the docs that might be helpful. Also you can see Troubleshooting performance issues.
We want to shard our PostgreSQL DB, due to high disk load. Firstly, we looked at django-sharding library, but:
Very much rewriting in our backend
Migrating all tables to 64-bit primary keys is hard work on 300-400gb tables
Generating ids with Postgres Specific algorithm makes it impossible to move data from shard to shard. More than that, we have a large database with old ids. Updating all of them is a big problem too.
Generating ids with special tables makes us do a special SELECT query to main database every time we insert data. We have high write load, so it's not good.
Considring all these, we decided too look on Postgres database sharding solutions. We found 2 opportunities - Citus and PostgresXL. Citus makes us change data format too much and rewrite a big bunch of backend at the same time, so we are about to try PostgresXL as more transparent solution. But reading the docs, I can't understand some things and will be greatfull for recomendations:
Are there any other sharding workarounds except for Citus and PostgresXL? It would be good not to change much in our database on migrating.
Some questions about PostgresXL:
Do I understand correctly, that it's not Postgres extension, it's a standalone fork? So I should build all its parts from sources and than move data in some way?
How are Postgres and PostgresXL versions compatible? We have PostgreSQL 9.4. I don't see such a version in PostgresXL (9.2 or 9.5 no middle?). So can I use, for example, streaming replication for migration?
If yes/no, what is the best solution to migrate data? If I have 2Tb database with heavy write, can I migrate it somehow without stopping for a long period of time?
Thanks.
First off to save your self a LOT of headache have you looked at options Like Amazon's Auora, Dynomo, Red Shift, etc services? They are VERY cost effective at scale, as well as optimized and managed for you.
Actually Amazon's straight Postgress databases can handle MASSIVE amounts of reads or writes. We can go into 2,000- 6,000 IOPS on reads and another 2,000 to 6,000 IOPS in writes without issue. I would really look into this as the option. Azure, Oracle, and Google also have competing services.
Also be aware that Postgres-XL beyond all reason has no HA support. If you lose a single node you lose everything. The nodes can not fail over.
it's a standalone fork?
Yes, They are very different apps and developed separate from each other.
How are Postgres and PostgresXL versions compatible?
They arn't compatible. You can not just migration Postgres to Postgresl-XL. They work VERY differently.
Generating ids with Postgres Specific algorithm makes it impossible to >move data from shard to shard
Not following this, but with sharing you are not supposed to move data from one shard to another. The key being used generally needs to be something specific and unique to split/segregate your data on. Like a date, or a "type" field, or some other (hopefully ordered) field(s)/column(s). This breaks things up but has obvious pain in the a$$ limitations.
Are there any other sharding workarounds except for Citus and
PostgresXL? It would be good not to change much in our database on >>migrating.
Tons of options, but right off the bat going from a standard RDS, to a NoSql, or MPP database is going to be a major migration, a lot of effort, and have a LOT of limitations no matter what you do.
Next Postress-XL and Citus are MPP (massive parallel processing) clustering apps, not sharing specifically. That is part of what they can do, but it is not their focus.
Other options for MPP
pgPool -- (not great for heavy writes )
haProxy -- ( have not done it but read about it. Lost of work to setup and maintain. )
MySql Cluster -- (Huge pain to use the OSS version and major $$$ for the commercial version)
Green Plumb
Teradata
Vertica
what is the best solution to migrate data?
Very unlikely to find a simple migration for this kind of switch. You can expect to likely need to export the data your self from the existing RDS and import it to the new DB and will likely have to write something your self to get it the way you want it.
I would to move my application to Amazon SimpleDB, since I’m not going to maintain database service on my own. This application lives under heavy load. There are a lot of reads/writes per second. I don’t need consistency and atomicity and I want to keep things as simple as possible, so SimpleDB is good choice.
The problem is, that I need full-text search capacities. And I don’t know how to make it better with Amazon SimpleDb. I had implemented before hand-written full-text search with MongoDB database. I had to split text to words in my application layer, and build my own index. It was not hard, but I don’t want to do it again with SimpleDB.
I found an interesting article
http://codingthriller.blogspot.com/2008/04/simpledb-full-text-search-or-how-to.html
But I would like to not have to implement it myself. I’m looking for a pre-made solution
What are the options?
Is it better to use Amazon RDS + Lucene?
Or probably there are out of the box solutions for SimpleDB?
Requirements are:
Ability to handle a lot of concurrency requests
Full-text search (text size would not be greater then 1MB (SimpleDB restriction))
Preferable not to admin it on my own.
Lucene or similar is usually the way people do it, but not knowing what platform you're working with its hard to suggest anything in particular. Simol is an .NET object-persistence framework for SimpleDB which can use Lucene.NET for indexing. I've also looked at some basic Lucene.NET examples which aren't too bad. If you're looking for a hosted indexing service you could take a look at this question.
For your indexing to do its job well, you're more than likely going to have to tailor it to your application.
Amazon looks like they will announce something to do with search on Jan 18 2012. http://pandodaily.com/2012/01/17/good-news-for-ec2-customers-amazon-may-launch-new-cloud-search-tomorrow/
SimpleDB for full text search is not great. It will not search more than about 300,000 documents on a single field, using the %like% operator, for instance. It will take about 2 or three tries - about 15 seconds to run through only a hundred MB of text looking for a match. I think its too slow, as do others. See the AWS forums...
Amazon CloudSearch has been released but does not have an easy way to move data from your SimpleDB to CloudSearch without you writing code.
The API, however, is fairly simple and it probably could get up in running in a week or two depending on your needs (if you use the existined SDKs). If you're using a programming language without an SDK, then it will take you longer.
http://aws.amazon.com/cloudsearch/
I have my first app, not that big, but it is the first step. (next big one on the way)
Now if I want to put it on my own Linode VPS, I have to configure mod_python or mod_wsgi, as well as memcache, Ngix, mySQL or Postgresql, etc. to make it work. If I put it GAE, All I have to do is convert the models to use GAE's API.
What I like about GAE is scaling. (if they can really do it)
Then I'd only worry about developing my apps and doing SEO work on them instead of worrying about load share/balance, cache, db / IO redundancy, etc.
I don't want to do any porting later on. (I have to decide now and stick with it)
So, if you have any experience on this, what do you recommend:
1- Use VPS(s) for everthing
2- Use VPS(s) plus Amazon S3
3- Use VPS(s) plus Amazon S3 & SimpleDB
4- Use GAE
Also: Would I be able to get away with not having JOIN rights when using the BigTable?
Note: I don't have any spatial need now, but for a location table I might need that later on.
I'd like to know what do you think!
There's business risk and technical risk.
Business risk is that you might have to move hosts later for some external reason. VPS's, EC2, etc require more upfront investment, but keep you independent. Tools like Chef can help with the configuration effort.
Technical risk is that your application may not be easily implemented on the platform. Since most VPS options allow you to install arbitrary software, they minimize this, again at the cost of more configuration effort on your part. AFAIK, the largest constraint GAE enforces on you is it's difficult to do long running background tasks. (Working without JOINs and other aspects of de-normalized data requires a different way of thinking, but this approach is fairly common in web applications no matter where they run once the SQL database is larger than a single host can support.)
If you can live with both these risks, GAE would appear to save you a substantial amount of effort. If you cannot live with these risks, you should tailor your own environment.
As an aside, I find S3 to be worth it no matter your environment. It's far simpler than ensuring your local server static file storage is reliably backed up, and you never have to worry about capacity. It's best if you use it for data that is uploaded but rarely overwritten or deleted (think facebook photo albums).
I don't want to do any porting later on. (I have to decide now and stick with it)
If that's the case, wouldn't you prefer to control deployment from the outset? It could be a great pain to port back from GAE later down the line if you hit its limits (whether they be technological limits or simply business decisions by Google that run counter to your plans for the future of your app).
Also configuring mod_wsgi, installing postgres etc. isn't particularly difficult, and you don't have to worry about things like load balancing and db redundancy for a while yet.
If it were me, I'd prefer the long-term certainty of a traditional server over the quick win of GAE. It all depends on your vision for the app, however.
I may be biased, but if you can live with GAE's limitations it really saves you a lot of work and worry about system administration issues (and to some extent scaling) -- plus, it's free as long as your resource consumption is low (basically meaning your traffic is low).
Can you do without joins? I don't know, as I don't know your app -- I'm a SQL fanatic, myself, yet for simple enough needs I haven't found it too hard to adapt. As I see it, the main limitation of non-relational DBs is that they're nowhere as nice as relational ones for "ad hoc" queries... you typically have to write a lot of procedural code instead of a nice SELECT or two:-(. But, that's more of a "data mining later" issue than one connected with serving your web app -- probably best solved by regularly bulk-downloading data from the web app's online storage to a "data warehouse" kind of setup, anyway, even if such storage was relational in the first place;-).
Before deciding, it might be worth a quick prototype adaptation of your app to GAE. You might run into stoppers that force the decision. Possible stopper issues include
Your schema doesn't make the transition to BigTable
You're depending on some C-based library that GAE doesn't support
You have a few long-running requests that exceed the thresholds that GAE imposes
The answer depends on the complexity and nature of your model layer, really. If it's complex or tightly bound to the rest of your code, porting is likely to be a significant effort. If it's fairly straightforward, or easy to tear out and replace, I would say go for it.
These days, I mostly write new code for GAE, but the fact that I can simply deploy with a single command has really lowered the barrier I feel towards writing cool new apps. Not having to worry about deployment and hosting is quite liberating.
All I have to do is convert the models to use GAE's API.
I am sorry, you are totally mistaken.
You also need to rewrite all the views code that uses the ORM. There are no joins. So you have to deal with and write a lot of procedural code instead of the nifty SQL that provides U whatever you want.
Querying is slow. You need to override save method of each model to store additional information of that model which may take a lot of time to compute when need. You also need to work on memcache to make the queries fast enough.
And then, Guido has said Django 1.1 is going to be included in a future version of Appengine. I am hoping they will have an out of the box generic ORM to BigTable mapper.
That said, if your app is simple without many joins needed, you could use the appengine patch project to use the current version of django on Appengine. Here is how.