Alternatives to TimescaleDB

Hi everyone. I'm trying to create my personal syslog monitoring.

1. To get the logs, I have uncertainty to choose the way: 1.1 Use Logstash like a TCP server. 1.2 Implement a Go TCP server.

2. To store and plot data. 2.1 Use Elasticsearch tools. 2.2 Use InfluxDB and Grafana.

I would like to know... Which is a cheaper and scalable solution?

Or even if there is a better way to do it.

Recently we were looking at a few robust and cost-effective ways of replicating the data that resides in our production MongoDB to a PostgreSQL database for data warehousing and business intelligence.

We set ourselves the following criteria for the optimal tool that would do this job: - The data replication must be near real-time, yet it should NOT impact the production database - The data replication must be horizontally scalable (based on the load), asynchronous & crash-resilient

Based on the above criteria, we selected the following tools to perform the end to end data replication:

We chose MongoDB Stitch for picking up the changes in the source database. It is the serverless platform from MongoDB. One of the services offered by MongoDB Stitch is Stitch Triggers. Using stitch triggers, you can execute a serverless function (in Node.js) in real time in response to changes in the database. When there are a lot of database changes, Stitch automatically "feeds forward" these changes through an asynchronous queue.

We chose Amazon SQS as the pipe / message backbone for communicating the changes from MongoDB to our own replication service. Interestingly enough, MongoDB stitch offers integration with AWS services.

In the Node.js function, we wrote minimal functionality to communicate the database changes (insert / update / delete / replace) to Amazon SQS.

Next we wrote a minimal micro-service in Python to listen to the message events on SQS, pickup the data payload & mirror the DB changes on to the target Data warehouse. We implemented source data to target data translation by modelling target table structures through SQLAlchemy . We deployed this micro-service as AWS Lambda with Zappa. With Zappa, deploying your services as event-driven & horizontally scalable Lambda service is dumb-easy.

In the end, we got to implement a highly scalable near realtime Change Data Replication service that "works" and deployed to production in a matter of few days!

We use MongoDB as our primary #datastore. Mongo's approach to replica sets enables some fantastic patterns for operations like maintenance, backups, and #ETL.

As we pull #microservices from our #monolith, we are taking the opportunity to build them with their own datastores using PostgreSQL. We also use Redis to cache data we’d never store permanently, and to rate-limit our requests to partners’ APIs (like GitHub).

When we’re dealing with large blobs of immutable data (logs, artifacts, and test results), we store them in Amazon S3. We handle any side-effects of S3’s eventual consistency model within our own code. This ensures that we deal with user requests correctly while writes are in process.

PostgreSQL was an easy early decision for the founding team. The relational data model fit the types of analyses they would be doing: filtering, grouping, joining, etc., and it was the database they knew best.

Shortly after adopting PG, they discovered Citus, which is a tool that makes it easy to distribute queries. Although it was a young project and a fork of Postgres at that point, Dan says the team was very available, highly expert, and it wouldn’t be very difficult to move back to PG if they needed to.

The stuff they forked was in query execution. You could treat the worker nodes like regular PG instances. Citus also gave them a ton of flexibility to make queries fast, and again, they felt the data model was the best fit for their application.

#DataStores #Databases

At Heap, we searched for an existing tool that would allow us to express the full range of analyses we needed, index the event definitions that made up the analyses, and was a mature, natively distributed system.

After coming up empty on this search, we decided to compromise on the “maturity” requirement and build our own distributed system around Citus and sharded PostgreSQL. It was at this point that we also introduced Kafka as a queueing layer between the Node.js application servers and Postgres.

If we could go back in time, we probably would have started using Kafka on day one. One of the biggest benefits in adopting Kafka has been the peace of mind that it brings. In an analytics infrastructure, it’s often possible to make data ingestion idempotent.

In Heap’s case, that means that, if anything downstream from Kafka goes down, we won’t lose any data – it’s just going to take a bit longer to get to its destination. We also learned that you want the path between data hitting your servers and your initial persistence layer (in this case, Kafka) to be as short and simple as possible, since that is the surface area where a failure means you can lose customer data. We learned that it’s a very good fit for an analytics tool, since you can handle a huge number of incoming writes with relatively low latency. Kafka also gives you the ability to “replay” the data flow: it’s like a commit log for your whole infrastructure.

#MessageQueue #Databases #FrameworksFullStack

My background is in Data analytics in the telecom domain. Have to build the database for analyzing large volumes of CDR data so far the data are maintained in a file server and the application queries data from the files. It's consuming a lot of resources queries are taking time so now I am asked to come up with the approach. I planned to rewrite the app, so which database needs to be used. I am confused between MongoDB and Druid.

So please do advise me on picking from these two and why?

My process is like this: I would get data once a month, either from Google BigQuery or as parquet files from Azure Blob Storage. I have a script that does some cleaning and then stores the result as partitioned parquet files because the following process cannot handle loading all data to memory.

The next process is making a heavy computation in a parallel fashion (per partition), and storing 3 intermediate versions as parquet files: two used for statistics, and the third will be filtered and create the final files.

I make a report based on the two files in Jupyter notebook and convert it to HTML.

• Everything is done with vanilla python and Pandas.
• sometimes I may get a different format of data
• cloud service is Microsoft Azure.

What I'm considering is the following:

Get the data with Kafka or with native python, do the first processing, and store data in Druid, the second processing will be done with Apache Spark getting data from apache druid.

the intermediate states can be stored in druid too. and visualization would be with apache superset.

1.0 of Stream leveraged Cassandra for storing the feed. Cassandra is a common choice for building feeds. Instagram, for instance started, out with Redis but eventually switched to Cassandra to handle their rapid usage growth. Cassandra can handle write heavy workloads very efficiently.

Cassandra is a great tool that allows you to scale write capacity simply by adding more nodes, though it is also very complex. This complexity made it hard to diagnose performance fluctuations. Even though we had years of experience with running Cassandra, it still felt like a bit of a black box. When building Stream 2.0 we decided to go for a different approach and build Keevo. Keevo is our in-house key-value store built upon RocksDB, gRPC and Raft.

RocksDB is a highly performant embeddable database library developed and maintained by Facebook’s data engineering team. RocksDB started as a fork of Google’s LevelDB that introduced several performance improvements for SSD. Nowadays RocksDB is a project on its own and is under active development. It is written in C++ and it’s fast. Have a look at how this benchmark handles 7 million QPS. In terms of technology it’s much more simple than Cassandra.

This translates into reduced maintenance overhead, improved performance and, most importantly, more consistent performance. It’s interesting to note that LinkedIn also uses RocksDB for their feed.

#InMemoryDatabases #DataStores #Databases

Trying to establish a data lake(or maybe puddle) for my org's Data Sharing project. The idea is that outside partners would send cuts of their PHI data, regardless of format/variables/systems, to our Data Team who would then harmonize the data, create data marts, and eventually use it for something. End-to-end, I'm envisioning:

1. Ingestion->Secure, role-based, self service portal for users to upload data (1a. bonus points if it can preform basic validations/masking)
2. Storage->Amazon S3 seems like the cheapest. We probably won't need very big, even at full capacity. Our current storage is a secure Box folder that has ~4GB with several batches of test data, code, presentations, and planning docs.
3. Data Catalog-> AWS Glue? Azure Data Factory? Snowplow? is the main difference basically based on the vendor? We also will have Data Dictionaries/Codebooks from submitters. Where would they fit in?
4. Partitions-> I've seen Cassandra and YARN mentioned, but have no experience with either
5. Processing-> We want to use SAS if at all possible. What will work with SAS code?
6. Pipeline/Automation->The check-in and verification processes that have been outlined are rather involved. Some sort of automated messaging or approval workflow would be nice
7. I have very little guidance on what a "Data Mart" should look like, so I'm going with the idea that it would be another "experimental" partition. Unless there's an actual mart-building paradigm I've missed?
8. An end user might use the catalog to pull certain de-identified data sets from the marts. Again, role-based access and self-service gui would be preferable. I'm the only full-time tech person on this project, but I'm mostly an OOP, HTML, JavaScript, and some SQL programmer. Most of this is out of my repertoire. I've done a lot of research, but I can't be an effective evangelist without hands-on experience. Since we're starting a new year of our grant, they've finally decided to let me try some stuff out. Any pointers would be appreciated!

We've been using PostgreSQL since the very early days of Zulip, but we actually didn't use it from the beginning. Zulip started out as a MySQL project back in 2012, because we'd heard it was a good choice for a startup with a wide community. However, we found that even though we were using the Django ORM for most of our database access, we spent a lot of time fighting with MySQL. Issues ranged from bad collation defaults, to bad query plans which required a lot of manual query tweaks.

We ended up getting so frustrated that we tried out PostgresQL, and the results were fantastic. We didn't have to do any real customization (just some tuning settings for how big a server we had), and all of our most important queries were faster out of the box. As a result, we were able to delete a bunch of custom queries escaping the ORM that we'd written to make the MySQL query planner happy (because postgres just did the right thing automatically).

And then after that, we've just gotten a ton of value out of postgres. We use its excellent built-in full-text search, which has helped us avoid needing to bring in a tool like Elasticsearch, and we've really enjoyed features like its partial indexes, which saved us a lot of work adding unnecessary extra tables to get good performance for things like our "unread messages" and "starred messages" indexes.

I can't recommend it highly enough.

Often enough I have to explain my way of going about setting up a CI/CD pipeline with multiple deployment platforms. Since I am a bit tired of yapping the same every single time, I've decided to write it up and share with the world this way, and send people to read it instead ;). I will explain it on "live-example" of how the Rome got built, basing that current methodology exists only of readme.md and wishes of good luck (as it usually is ;)).

It always starts with an app, whatever it may be and reading the readmes available while Vagrant and VirtualBox is installing and updating. Following that is the first hurdle to go over - convert all the instruction/scripts into Ansible playbook(s), and only stopping when doing a clear vagrant up or vagrant reload we will have a fully working environment. As our Vagrant environment is now functional, it's time to break it! This is the moment to look for how things can be done better (too rigid/too lose versioning? Sloppy environment setup?) and replace them with the right way to do stuff, one that won't bite us in the backside. This is the point, and the best opportunity, to upcycle the existing way of doing dev environment to produce a proper, production-grade product.

I should probably digress here for a moment and explain why. I firmly believe that the way you deploy production is the same way you should deploy develop, shy of few debugging-friendly setting. This way you avoid the discrepancy between how production work vs how development works, which almost always causes major pains in the back of the neck, and with use of proper tools should mean no more work for the developers. That's why we start with Vagrant as developer boxes should be as easy as vagrant up, but the meat of our product lies in Ansible which will do meat of the work and can be applied to almost anything: AWS, bare metal, docker, LXC, in open net, behind vpn - you name it.

We must also give proper consideration to monitoring and logging hoovering at this point. My generic answer here is to grab Elasticsearch, Kibana, and Logstash. While for different use cases there may be better solutions, this one is well battle-tested, performs reasonably and is very easy to scale both vertically (within some limits) and horizontally. Logstash rules are easy to write and are well supported in maintenance through Ansible, which as I've mentioned earlier, are at the very core of things, and creating triggers/reports and alerts based on Elastic and Kibana is generally a breeze, including some quite complex aggregations.

If we are happy with the state of the Ansible it's time to move on and put all those roles and playbooks to work. Namely, we need something to manage our CI/CD pipelines. For me, the choice is obvious: TeamCity. It's modern, robust and unlike most of the light-weight alternatives, it's transparent. What I mean by that is that it doesn't tell you how to do things, doesn't limit your ways to deploy, or test, or package for that matter. Instead, it provides a developer-friendly and rich playground for your pipelines. You can do most the same with Jenkins, but it has a quite dated look and feel to it, while also missing some key functionality that must be brought in via plugins (like quality REST API which comes built-in with TeamCity). It also comes with all the common-handy plugins like Slack or Apache Maven integration.

The exact flow between CI and CD varies too greatly from one application to another to describe, so I will outline a few rules that guide me in it: 1. Make build steps as small as possible. This way when something breaks, we know exactly where, without needing to dig and root around. 2. All security credentials besides development environment must be sources from individual Vault instances. Keys to those containers should exist only on the CI/CD box and accessible by a few people (the less the better). This is pretty self-explanatory, as anything besides dev may contain sensitive data and, at times, be public-facing. Because of that appropriate security must be present. TeamCity shines in this department with excellent secrets-management. 3. Every part of the build chain shall consume and produce artifacts. If it creates nothing, it likely shouldn't be its own build. This way if any issue shows up with any environment or version, all developer has to do it is grab appropriate artifacts to reproduce the issue locally. 4. Deployment builds should be directly tied to specific Git branches/tags. This enables much easier tracking of what caused an issue, including automated identifying and tagging the author (nothing like automated regression testing!).

Speaking of deployments, I generally try to keep it simple but also with a close eye on the wallet. Because of that, I am more than happy with AWS or another cloud provider, but also constantly peeking at the loads and do we get the value of what we are paying for. Often enough the pattern of use is not constantly erratic, but rather has a firm baseline which could be migrated away from the cloud and into bare metal boxes. That is another part where this approach strongly triumphs over the common Docker and CircleCI setup, where you are very much tied in to use cloud providers and getting out is expensive. Here to embrace bare-metal hosting all you need is a help of some container-based self-hosting software, my personal preference is with Proxmox and LXC. Following that all you must write are ansible scripts to manage hardware of Proxmox, similar way as you do for Amazon EC2 (ansible supports both greatly) and you are good to go. One does not exclude another, quite the opposite, as they can live in great synergy and cut your costs dramatically (the heavier your base load, the bigger the savings) while providing production-grade resiliency.