People have chimed in and talked about the Foursquare outage. The nice part about these discussions is that they’re focusing on the technical problems with the current set up and Foursquare. They’re picking it apart and looking at what is right, what went wrong, and what needs to be done differently in MongoDB to prevent problems like this in the future. Let’s play a “what if” game. What if Foursquare wasn’t using MongoDB? What if they were using something else?
Riak is a massively scaleable key/value data store. It’s based on Amazon’s Dynamo. If you don’t want to read the paper, that just means that it uses some magic to make sure that data is evenly spread throughout the database cluster and that adding a new node makes it very easy to rebalance the cluster. What would have happened at Foursquare if they had been using Riak? Riak still suffers from the same performance characteristics around disk access as MongoDB – once you have to page to disk, operations become slow and throughput dries up. This is a common problem in any software that needs to access disks – disks are slow, RAM is fast. Riak, however, has an interesting distinction. It allocates keys inside the cluster using something called a consistent hash ring – this is just a convenient way to rapidly allocate ranges of keys to different nodes within a cluster. The ring itself isn’t interesting. What’s exciting is that the ring is divided into partitions (64 by default). Every node in the system claims an equal share of those 64 partitions. In addition, each partition is replicated so there are always three copies of a give key/value pair at any time. Because there are multiple copies of the data, it’s unlikely that any single node will fail or become unbalanced. In theory, if Foursquare had used Riak it is very unlikely that we’ll run into a problem were a single node becomes full. How would this consistent hash ring magical design choice have helped? Adding a new node causes the cluster to redistribute data in the background. The new node will claim and equal amount of space in the cluster and the data will be redistributed from the other nodes in the background. The same thing happens when a node fails, by the way. Riak also only stores keys in memory, not all of the data. So it’s possible to reference an astronomical amount before running out of RAM. There’s no need to worry about replica sets, re-sharding, or promoting a new node to master. Once a node joins a riak cluster, it takes over its share of the load. As long as you have the network throughput on your local network (which you probably do), then this operation can be fairly quick and painless.
Cassandra, like Riak, is based on Amazon’s Dynamo. It’s a massively distributed data store. I suspect that if Foursquare had used Cassandra, they would have run into similar problems. Cassandra makes use of range partitioning to distribute data within the cluster. The Foursquare database was keyed off of the user name which, in turn, saw abnormal growth because some groups of users were more active than others. Names also tend to clump around certain letters, especially when you’re limited to a Latin character set. I know a lot more Daves that I know Zachariahs, and I have a lot of friends whose names start with the letter L. This distribution causes data within the cluster to be overly allocated to one node. This would, ultimately, lead to the same problems that happened at Foursquare with their MongoDB installation. That being said, it’s possible to use a random partitioner for the data in Cassandra. The random partitioner makes it very easy to add additional nodes and distribute data across them. The random partitioner comes with a price. It makes it impossible to do quick range slice queries in Cassandra – you can no longer say “I want to see all of the data for January 3rd, 2010 through January 8th, 2010”. Instead, you would need to build up custom indexes to support your querying and build batch processes to load the indexes. The tradeoffs between the random partitioner and the order preserving partitioner are covered very well in Dominic Williams’s article Cassandra: RandomPartitioner vs OrderPreservingPartitioner. Careful use of the random partitioner and supporting batch operations could have prevented the outage that Foursquare saw, but this would have lead to different design challenges, some of which may have been difficult to overcome without resorting to a great deal of custom code.
HBase is a distributed column-oriented database built on top of HDFS. It is based on Google’s Bigtable database as described in “Bigtable: A Distributed Storage System for Structured Data”. As an implementation of Bigtable, HBase has a number of advantages over MongoDB – write ahead logging, rich ad hoc querying, and redundancy HBase is not going to suffer from the same node redistribution problems that caused the Foursquare outage. When it comes time to add a new node to the cluster data will be migrated in much larger chunks, one data file at a time. This makes it much easier to add a new data node and redistribute data across the network. Just like a relational database, HBase is designed so that all data doesn’t need to reside in memory for good performance. The internal data structures are built in a way that makes it very easy to find data and return it to the client. Keys are held in memory and two levels of caching make sure that frequently used data will be in memory when a client requests it. HBase also has the advantage of using a write ahead log. In the event of a drive failure, it is possible to recover from a backup of your HBase database and play back the log to make sure data is correct and consistent. If all of this sounds like HBase is designed to be a replacement for an RDBMS, you would be close. HBase is a massively distributed database, just like Bigtable. As a result, data needs to be logged because there is a chance that a hardware node will fail and will need to be recovered. Because HBase is a column-oriented database, we need to be careful not to treat it exactly like a relational database, but
A Relational Database
To be honest, Foursquare’s data load would be trivial in any relational database. SQL Server, Oracle, MySQL, and PostgreSQL can all handle orders of magnitude more data than the 132GB of data that Foursquare was storing at the time of the outage. This begs the question “How we could handle the constant write load?” Foursquare is a write-intensive application. Typically, in the relational database world, when you need to scale read and write loads we add more disks. There is a finite amount of space in a server chassis and these local disks don’t provide the redundancy necessary for data security and performance; software RAID is also CPU intensive and slow. A better solution is to purchase a dedicated storage device, either a SAN, NAS, or DAS. All of these devices offer read/write caching and can be configured with in a variety of RAID levels for performance and redundancy. RDBMSes are known quantities – they are easy to scale to certain points. Judging by the amount of data that Foursquare reports to have, they aren’t likely to reach the point where an RDBMS can no longer scale for a very long time. The downside to this approach is that an RDBMS is much costlier per TB of storage (up to ten times more expensive) than using MongoDB, but if your business is your data, then it’s important to keep the data safe.
It’s difficult to say if a different database solution would have prevented the Foursquare outage. But it is a good opportunity to highlight how different data storage systems would respond in the same situation.