We did a little exercise at work to come up with a plan to scale to absolutely massive levels. Not an entirely academic problem where I work. One of the options I am (strongly) in favor of is using something like couchdb to scale out. I was aware of couchdb before this but over the past few days I have learned quite a bit more that and am now even more convinced that couchdb is a perfect match for our needs. For obvious reasons I can’t dive in what we want to do with it exactly. But of course itemizing what I like in couchdb should give you a strong indication that it involves shitloads (think hundreds of millions) of data items served up to shitloads of users (likewise). Not unheard of in this day and age (e.g. Facebook, Google). But also not something any off the shelf solution is going to handle just like that.
Or so I thought …
The couchdb wiki has a nice two line description:
This is not the whole story but it gives a strong indication that quite a lot is being claimed here. So, lets dig into the details a bit.
Document oriented and schema less storage. CouchDB stores json documents. So, a document is nothing more than a JSON data structure. Fair enough. No schemas to worry about, just data. A tree with nodes, attributes and values. Up to you to determine what goes in the tree.
Conflict resolution. It has special attributes for the identity and revision of a document and some other couchdb stuff. Both id
and revision are globally unique uuids. UPDATE revision is not a uuid (thanks Matt).That means that any document stored in any instance of couchdb anywhere on this planet is uniquely identifiable and that any revision of such a document in any instance of couchdb is also uniquely identifiable. Any conflicts are easily identified by simply examining the id and revision attributes. A (simple) conflict resolution mechanism is part of couchdb. Simple but effective for simple day to day replication.
Robust incremental replication. Two couchdb nodes can replicate to each other. Since documents are globally unique, it is easy to figure out which document is on which node. Additionally, the revision id allows couchdb to figure out what the correct revision is. Should you be so unlucky to have conflicting changes on both nodes, there are ways of dealing with conflict resolution as well. What this means is that any node can replicate to any other node. All it takes is bandwidth and time. It’s bidirectional so you can have a master-master setup where both nodes consume writes and propagate changes to each other. The couchdb use the concept of “eventual consistency” to emphasize the fact that a network of couchdb nodes replicating to each other will eventually have the same data and be consistent with each other, regardless of the size of the network or how out of sync the nodes are at the beginning.
Fault tolerant.Couchdb uses a file as its datastore. Any write to a couchdb instance appends stuff to this file. Data in the file already is never overwritten. That’s why it is fault tolerant. The only part of the file that can possibly get corrupted is at the end of the file, which is easily detected (on startup). Aside from that, couchdb is rock solid and guaranteed to never touch your data once it has been committed to disk. New revisions don’t overwrite old ones, they are simply appended to the file (in full) to the end of the file with a new revision id. You. Never. Overwrite. Existing. Data. Ever. Fair enough, it doesn’t get more robust than that. Allegedly, kill -9 is a supported shutdown mechanism.
Cleanup by replicating. Because it is append only, a lot of cruft can accumulate in the bit of the file that is never touched again. Solution: add an empty node, tell the others to replicate to it. Once they are done replicating, you have a clean node and you can start cleaning up the old ones. Easy to automate. Data store cleanup is not an issue. Update. As Jan and Matt point out in the comments, you can use a compact function, which would be a bit more efficient.
Restful. CouchDBs native protocol is REST operations over HTTP. This means several things. First of all, there are no dedicated binary protocols, couchdb clients, drivers, etc. Instead you use normal REST and service related tooling to access couchdb. This is good because this is exactly what has made the internet work for all these years. Need caching? Pick your favorite caching proxy. Need load balancing? Same thing. Need access from language x on platform y? If it came with http support you are ready to roll.
on write (Update. actually it’s on read), so accessing a view is cheap whereas writing involves the cost of storing and the background task of updating all the relevant views, which you control yourself by writing good map reduce functions. It’s concurrent, so you can simply add nodes to scale. You can use views to index specific attributes, run clustering algorithms, implement join like query views, etc. Anything goes here. MS at one point had an experimental query optimizer backend for ms sql that was implemented using map reduce. Think expensive datamining SQL queries running as map reduce jobs on a generic map reduce cluster.
It’s fast. It is implemented in erlang which is a language that is designed from the ground up to scale on massively parallel systems. It’s a bit of a weird language but one with a long and very solid track record in high performance, high throughput type systems. Additionally, couchdb’s append only and lock free files are wickedly fast. Basically, the primary bottleneck is the available IO to disk. Couchdb developers are actually claiming sustained write throughput that is above 80% of the IO bandwidth to disk. Add nodes to scale out.
So couchdb is an extremely scalable & fast storage system for documents that provides incremental map reduce for querying and mining the data; http based access and replication; and a robust append only, overwrite never, and lock free storage.
Is that all?
Meebo decided that this was all nice and dandy but they needed to partition and shard their data instead of having all their data in every couchdb node. So they came up with CouchDB Lounge. Basically what couchdb lounge does is enabled by the REST like nature of couchdb. It’s a simple set of scripts on top of nginx (a popular http proxy) and the python twisted framework (a popular IO oriented framework for python) that dynamically routes HTTP messages to the right couchdb node. Each node hosts not one but several (configurable) couchdb shards. As the shards fill up, new nodes can be added and the existing shards are redistributed among them. Each shard calculates its map reduce views, the scripts in front of the loadbalancer take care of reducing these views across all nodes to a coherent ‘global’ view. I.e. from the outside world, a couchdb lounge cluster looks just like any other couchdb node. It’s sharded nature is completely transparent. Except it is effectively infinitely scalable both in the number of documents it can store as well in the read/write throughput. Couchdb looks just like any other couchdb instance in the sense that you can run the full test suite that comes with couchdb against and it will basically pass all tests. There’s no difference from a functional perspective.
So, couchdb with couchdb lounge provides an off the shelf solution for storing, accessing and querying shitloads of documents. Precisely what we need. If shitloads of users come that need access, we can give them all the throughput they could possibly need by throwing more hardware in the mix. If shitloads is redefined to mean billions instead of millions, same solution. I’m sold. I want to get my hands dirty now. I’m totally sick and tired of having to deal with retarded ORM solutions that are neither easy, scalable, fast, robust, or even remotely convenient. I have some smart colleagues who are specialized in this stuff and way more who are not. The net result is a data layer that requires constant fire fighting to stay operational. The non experts routinely do stuff they shouldn’t be doing that then requires lots of magic from our DB & ORM gurus. And to be fair, I’m not an expert. CouchDB is so close to being a silver bullet here that you’d have to be a fool to ignore the voices telling you that it is all too good to be true. But then again, I’ve been looking for flaws and so far have not come up with something substantial.
Sure, I have lots of unanswered questions and I’m hardly a couchdb expert since technically, any newby with more than an hour experience coding stuff for the thing outranks me here. But if you put it all together you have an easy to understand storage solution that is used successfully by others in rather large deployments that seem to be doing quite well. If there are any limits in terms of the number of nodes, the number of documents, or indeed the read/write throughput, I’ve yet to identify it. All the available documentation seems to suggest that there are no such limits, by design.
Some good links: