So I've a really specific infrastructure where I need to store my "Older than 30 days" indices on COLD/WARM nodes. Those nodes have a S3 bucket (1 bucket for all 4 nodes) mounted as a filesystem on each node in /data/ folder. Of course, /data/ is set as path for those nodes to store indices etc.
Setup is : 4 Hot, 4 Cold/Warm, 15GB RAM each (7GB Heap)
What I'd like to ask is: When we are talking about 100GB of data daily (right now) and something like 500GB of data daily in the future - does an infrastructure like this make any sense?
We were testing this for a while now but some problems with stability occured, like, whole Elastic was exploding. It seemed like S3 + S3FS is too slow to work on such amounts of data. All HOT and COLD/WARM nodes have 15GB of RAM and a heap of 7GB - that is a setup for 100GB of data per day, we will of course expand it but the most important question is:
Does mounting S3 with S3FS as a filesystem for Elasticsearch indices in RHEL 7 make any sense or should I look for some other ways to store old data?
I know this is a very abstract question so really I will be very gratefull for any answers!
It makes sense as a concept, but it's definitely not supported and probably won't work. Elasticsearch (really Lucene) expects to be able to quickly access random sections of its index files, and that's not the interface S3 exposes, so I guess it's going to be downloading a lot of data (slowly) each time it wants to access each block of each file. You could even end up paying more in access and transfer costs than simply for storing the data on block storage.
Well, being honest we use something like that: https://www.emc.com/techpubs/ecs/ecs_s3_supported_features-1.htm#GUID-8725EEF9-EE9C-4423-A9DD-58B6877B8486
It acts like an S3 but it is not one. It's also slow as hell. Anyways costs don't matter in this situation because we don't really use a real-deal S3 from Amazon.
If your storage is very slow when it comes to random read access, you might very well even at low data volumes end up with a node that is unusable. I would recommend using some other type of storage.
What if we closed each index before putting it on COLD/WARM node and re-open it when it was really necessary? We are creating new indices every 24hours so finding a specific index from a specific point in day/year wouldn't be a problem.
Closing indices just help with resource usage, not query performance (which is my primary concern in this case). If you are suffering from heap pressure I would recommend you read this blog post on sharding and watch this webinar on optimising storage.
Ah yes, I've met these things . The storage underneath is a normal filesystem as far as I could tell, which is what Elasticsearch wants, so the S3 compatibility layer is really just getting in the way here. Can you cut out the middleman and talk directly to the disks?
If you can do this then could you also snapshot each index and only restore them when you want to query? Snapshot/Restore is designed to work with S3's whole-object access model.
Incidentally, the idea you describe is what Frozen Indices · Issue #34352 · elastic/elasticsearch · GitHub should offer, but it's unlikely to help with the kind of storage you describe as @Christian_Dahlqvist says.
If the cold tier is truly cold, you can use snapshot and restore with this file system. This will however require you to restore indices before querying and you still need to have capacity waiting your hot/warm cluster.
Woah! Frozen Indices sound really cool!
This week I'm about to turn-on those COLD nodes (because the wheels are already turning) and my biggest "fear" is that whole Elastic will become extremely unstable. Probably as @Christian_Dahlqvist said, we would need more memory to run something like that. If our elastic goes kaboom then I'll have to do snapshots, it seems that is the only way because I can't change much in our Elastic project
This topic was automatically closed 28 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.