Skip to main content

amazon ec2 - How good is this MongoDB/EC2 setup?





Hi,
I wondered what was a good setup for AWS/MongoDB in terms of machines and the sizes of their disks.



Current setup





  • 3 micro machines for the config servers, 1 mongos and arbiters. The 8Gb limit is almost reached. (and I ran the arbiters with --nojournal)

  • per shard : a replica set of 2 machines m1.large with 8Gb for system + 20Gb for data

  • everything is on EBS.



Questions




  1. is 20Gb too big or too small ? Should I go with 100Gb for example ?

  2. Am I supposed to inform mongodb about the 20Gb (or other) disk limit ?


  3. Do you see anything wrong that I don't see ? Im new to mongodb and aws but Im an ok experienced SWE



Plan of use



My database should allow a 100 qps (mostly writes), and should grow up to 1Tb over the next 3 years. The plan is to add as many shards as needed, more or less manually (with scripts), when we see that more memory is needed on the database.



We will also run a few mapreduce over this and have some scripts that do aggregates with the data over the past 15 minutes, every 15 minutes.



We are a very small company, spending up to a few hundred $ per month on our servers would be ok but we can't go crazy on cash.




We hope that we won't have to manually take care of too many machine failures, manually taking care of things once a month would be fine.



Thanks for telling me what you think about that.



Thomas


Answer



First your specific questions:





is 20Gb too big or too small ? Should I go with 100Gb for example ?




This completely depends on your data requirements and how many documents you intend to insert. If you intend to have 5GB of documents then you should be fine, even with overheads for replication (oplog is 5% of free space) and storage (there is always an empty file pre-allocated for each database). If you plan to have 10-12GB of data (and remember you have to store indexes, journal, logs as well) then I would go for a larger disk.



Since you say you plan to grow to 1TB in a year then you will probably exceed 20GB inside a month and need to increase disk anyway, hence it will probably be easier to go for 100GB immediately. At 1TB in a year, assuming constant growth, that will only give you about 1 month of room (1TB per year ~= 83GB per month).




Am I supposed to inform mongodb about the 20Gb (or other) disk limit ?





No, there have been improvements in how it handles the situation but MongoDB will currently just use all available space until there is none left - you need to monitor your disk space independently.




Do you see anything wrong that I don't see ? Im new to mongodb and aws but Im an ok experienced SWE




Never use micro instances for anything in production - in particular do not use them for config servers. Your config servers are critical for the operation of a sharded cluster. But, no need to take my word for it - see page 6 of the updated Amazon whitepaper:





T1.micro instances are not recommended for production MongoDB deployments, including arbiters, config servers, and mongos shard managers.




Generally I would recommend reading through the whitepaper and following the guidelines therein - you'll find recommendations for Linux settings (readahead, hugepages etc.), storage, pIOPS and more. Also worth checking out are the Production Notes - some duplication, but it's updated more often than a whitepaper.



Finally, get some idea of your working set size for your database (per shard) - that will dictate how much RAM you need, which is really the key to selecting instance size on EC2 for MongoDB. You may have enough with 8GB, but if not you will see significant performance hits for hitting disk.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

linux - iDRAC6 Virtual Media native library cannot be loaded

When attempting to mount Virtual Media on a iDRAC6 IP KVM session I get the following error: I'm using Ubuntu 9.04 and: $ javaws -version Java(TM) Web Start 1.6.0_16 $ uname -a Linux aud22419-linux 2.6.28-15-generic #51-Ubuntu SMP Mon Aug 31 13:39:06 UTC 2009 x86_64 GNU/Linux $ firefox -version Mozilla Firefox 3.0.14, Copyright (c) 1998 - 2009 mozilla.org On Windows + IE it (unsurprisingly) works. I've just gotten off the phone with the Dell tech support and I was told it is known to work on Linux + Firefox, albeit Ubuntu is not supported (by Dell, that is). Has anyone out there managed to mount virtual media in the same scenario?

hp proliant - Smart Array P822 with HBA Mode?

We get an HP DL360 G8 with an Smart Array P822 controller. On that controller will come a HP StorageWorks D2700 . Does anybody know, that it is possible to run the Smart Array P822 in HBA mode? I found only information about the P410i, who can run HBA. If this is not supported, what you think about the LSI 9207-8e controller? Will this fit good in that setup? The Hardware we get is used but all original from HP. The StorageWorks has 25 x 900 GB SAS 10K disks. Because the disks are not new I would like to use only 22 for raid6, and the rest for spare (I need to see if the disk count is optimal or not for zfs). It would be nice if I'm not stick to SAS in future. As OS I would like to install debian stretch with zfs 0.71 as file system and software raid. I have see that hp has an page for debian to. I would like to use hba mode because it is recommend, that zfs know at most as possible about the disk, and I'm independent from the raid controller. For us zfs have many benefits,

apache 2.2 - Server Potentially Compromised -- c99madshell

So, low and behold, a legacy site we've been hosting for a client had a version of FCKEditor that allowed someone to upload the dreaded c99madshell exploit onto our web host. I'm not a big security buff -- frankly I'm just a dev currently responsible for S/A duties due to a loss of personnel. Accordingly, I'd love any help you server-faulters could provide in assessing the damage from the exploit. To give you a bit of information: The file was uploaded into a directory within the webroot, "/_img/fck_uploads/File/". The Apache user and group are restricted such that they can't log in and don't have permissions outside of the directory from which we serve sites. All the files had 770 permissions (user rwx, group rwx, other none) -- something I wanted to fix but was told to hold off on as it wasn't "high priority" (hopefully this changes that). So it seems the hackers could've easily executed the script. Now I wasn't able