Scroll down to the script below, click on any sentence (including terminal blocks!) to jump to that spot in the video!
SymfonyCon 2018 Presentation by Jeremy Mikola
An all-too-common approach for database error handling is to log the exception, return a 500 response, and move on to the next request. MongoDB and its PHP driver have an array of features that can greatly improve an application's resiliency in the face of unexpected errors. This talk will examine how the driver monitors connections to a cluster and look at how we can tune its behavior to meet an application's unique needs. We'll also demonstrate how PHP applications can take advantage of newer features such as retryable writes and multi-document transactions to guarantee ACID data integrity without having to fall back to PDO and an SQL database.
Hello, my name is Jeremy Mikola. We have 40 minutes and 58 slides, so I will try to be brief and there probably will not be time for questions. I will be outside and catch me before tomorrow, etc.
Um, welcome. A little bit about myself. I'll make this very brief. I've been in the Symfony community for a while. I missed Cluj last year, but I've been to most of the other conferences. Later join me on the main stage for Jeopardy. I work for MongoDB, it's been about six and a half years now, which is longer than I expected it to be. It's still taking good care of me and they keep giving me more clothes, so I'm happy there. We might have a WurstCon tomorrow, but these days, I work less with Symfony. I work on the MongoDB driver and Doctrine. Andreas is here and there's some other folks from Doctrine here I think this weekend. So that's mainly what I work on.
Um, I did not get fired for this. This is MongoDB snapchat for databases. Uh, this was a few years ago. I'm still employed, happily. And so just an overview of what I want to talk about today. The subject was a little strange with bulletproof MongoDB. But I want, kind of a best practices talk and talk about some of the newer features that take us away from, whereas a few years ago this was maybe more relevant that the criticisms to MongoDB, but there's more new features that give it more maturity and stability. So I want to cover.
So I'm going to start by just a show of hands. How many people are familiar with using MongoDB in production or playing around with it first. Okay, great. That's about half. So we'll talk a little bit about deployment models. I think for development environments, a lot of us use just a single
mongod process, we don't use clusters or anything. But talk a little bit about that because of the better concepts definitely work with clusters. Talk a little bit about how the driver works specifically the php driver, which makes a lot of, have to do special behaviors because it's, we don't have threads, we don't have a lot of the other features that things like Java and Python have. And then talk about designing applications and the three subjects there are some concepts that you can apply to your application, how, what are the best practices for error handling and how do we take advantage of transactions, which is a newer feature within the last year of having actual ACID transactions that you'd find in a relational database.
That's the talk. Please leave feedback on joind.in. Is this going to happen regularly or is there a presentation mode?
Yeah, that's what happens if he doesn't go through the slides quickly. That's a good password. Yep. There we go. We're good? Yeah. Well, I think we're good. Yeah, disable the screensaver. So if you want to know what to do (inaudible). Sorry about that.
Thanks Andreas. So the basic is a standalone, this is just running one
mongod. This is a good development environment, my production websites, I'll just use this because I have everything on one linode. This is: everything stands alone. You don't want to do this in production.
The two main things that you would want to deploy your database is one with replication, this should at least have three MongoD processes on different machines and your client and driver is talking to the, um, in a cluster, you have one that is the one that you can write to, and usually you also read from, and then the secondaries are constantly replicating the same data. And they're also communicating with each other to keep aware if one of them disappears. So if the primary server was to crash or fail over, you take it down, someone unplugs the network cable, you still have two out of three and they can take over. And one of them will become the new primary. And your application goes from talking to this primary to talking to the next one.
And so those are, when we talk about failures and recovering from failures, this is a very common thing where a machine goes down or you're doing maintenance or things like that. Uh, and then more advanced, which I expect maybe less people are using is with a shard cluster. And this is where you have your app servers and you would have another cluster of replica sets, another three that store the configuration for where data is stored here. And then similar to sharding in a SQL database, you'll have your data split across, sorry, you'll have your data split across multiple shards.
And typically in this case, you might have a very large collection say... where is it... your user accounts maybe a smaller collection, but your big collection may be all the photos they're posting all the tweets that they're posting. So you would split that across multiple shards. And this would be horizontal scaling, it was discussed in some other talks earlier today. But that's, you're spreading out instead of making a bigger Amazon instance or scaling vertically. And because you can have hundreds or thousands of shards, we have another process that kind of acts like a router so that the driver does not have to, the php driver does not have to open up, in this case, this is a comically large php app where you have fpm workers and they all put in sockets. So you want to avoid the case where we have thousands of connections being opened by every php process. So there we would go through a routing process.
So those are the two basic deployment models: sharded cluster and then a replica set. And they leverage each other. So sharding, uses replication internally. And then if you're a smaller application, you don't need to scale out, you would just use replication. But the driver different than, you say that the PDO MySQL driver, it will typically talk to one server at a time, whereas most of the MongoDB drivers are responsible for doing, talking to the entire cluster of database servers. And this is also different from, if a driver, if anyone uses Cassandra from the last presentation, I remember going to Cassandra, there the driver talks to one node and that talks to everyone else. So in most other databases, the drivers talk to a single database node at a time.
But taking just a dive through what the PHP driver does when you use it. So we start with a connection string, which is similar to if use Doctrine with a relational database there's a DSN. This is very similar. We have specifications that tell us how to parse this. So it kind of looks like an http url. We have host identifiers, so maybe this case it's one server, but if it's a cluster, it could be comma with multiple servers that you might talk to. And there is additional and DNS if anyone's familiar with SRV records. And this is something that was added recently, instead of having to maintain constantly changing connection strings, if you add more nodes to your cluster, we can use DNS to keep track of that for us, which makes maintenance easier for the very large customers. So this is something that our cloud provider uses. We have a cloud service in MongoDB and it uses SRV records to give you shorter connection strings.
And now once we parse a connection string, we know that's maybe one or two servers that we have to talk to. We need to discover everyone. So we're going to start by doing a handshake. We know a few servers that we can talk to, we reach out to them, we send them a command, and that is basically an exchange of knowing what protocols does the server speak because there's many different versions, and what protocols does the driver speak. And this carries over with, if we're doing authentication, if we're doing compression, a zlib or snappy compression for the protocol messages, we just want to negotiate what features are available. And I'm rushing through a lot of this but the slides are very verbose, but everything references, if you'd like to look this up later, I'll share the slides.
So once the driver talks to the server, it know, well we support this compression. We support this authentication mechanism. The next step is to now we would go through authentication and we'd say I want to start discovering who else is in the cluster. So if it was a replica set and maybe we just connected to that one primary, we do want to reach out and know who the secondary servers are. With a shard cluster it might just be talking to multiple router processes. And so this we call server discovery and monitoring, we abbreviate it as SDAM. It's one of the larger specifications. It's one of the more complicated ones that all the drivers have to do. But this defines how we have a bunch of sockets talking to servers and how we monitor them to keep track of new servers showing up old servers, going away, getting network errors. And before we even talk to the servers, we know from the connection string, maybe we can infer that there's a certain, we think we're talking to a shard cluster, we think we're talking to a replica set, but once we actually start getting responses then we know for sure what kind of servers that we're talking to.
And so this is where things start deviating. And we have a multithreaded drivers, think of like a Java app where they have large app servers, with request handlers and threads, and there's one instance of the driver running on the app server. and then the other example where we had all the boxes on top. In a php app, with typically fpm, you have hundreds, thousands of workers across a large app, a fleet of app servers. And so collectively a single threaded app like php is going to open a lot more connections on MongoDB side. As well as, just in the individual app server, if you have each php worker, we can't share things between PHP workers because every, in a php application, everything shares nothing with the other. It's kind of a design point of PHP is that we share nothing with the other php app servers. So it definitely complicates things in how we have to deal with talking to a distributed database cluster.
So we need different approaches to monitoring. And in a Java driver, Node JS, if we have a multithreaded asynchronous or we could have a background thread that's in a connection pool, which is more common. And then if you look at php, a lot of database drivers in php, there's no reason to use connection pools because we can't... most sane people are not using threads in php. And so typically a php database driver, we persist the socket. So the PHP request comes in, we'll use the socket, there's only one thing running at a time and when we're done with that php request, we leave the socket open for the next request that gets served. So for an FPM worker, that makes sense. The first worker will open the connection and then every other php request that got served can use the same socket.
And that saves us the time of setting up SSL and going through the whole handshake. We can kind of inherit some of the state that we're connected to. So in a single-threaded, separate sockets would be redundant. We don't do connection pooling, it doesn't really make sense for php's design. And then there's different improvements that we can make for monitoring. So there's a concept of when, just in php itself, when you do, when you work with streams or in other database drivers, you have a socket timeout in php, which is the default socket timeout INI setting. For some reason php defaults that to 60 seconds, even though the PHP execution time is 30 seconds. So it's quite possible that you would timeout talking to doing a
fopen or doing a http request in guzzle or something and your php scripts would die giving up. So those defaults are a bit odd. But in the Mongo driver, we have a socket timeout and that's us talking to the database, and then a connect timeout is for us establishing the connection. So logically we'd like this to be a bit smaller than socket timeout. Socket timeout is going to be you running queries and doing other things and those are going to take longer. Connection timeout we want that to be quick: try and connect to the server, if it's not there, we'd like to know as soon as possible so we can return an error.
And there's other improvements that we can make here to kind of do this for a single threaded driver. We don't have a background thread, we have to kind of do everything on demand monitoring. So what we can do is use an event loop internally to just kind of try to monitor all the servers at once, and waste as little bit of your time so that your php script can continue executing.
And so with monitoring implemented, I won't dwell too much on that, the next part is for the drivers to select servers. So the driver connects to a bunch of servers and now we have to, when we do an operation, we need to talk to one. So if we're doing a write, we need to know maybe three or four servers we're connected to, which one is the primary. If we're doing a read, we might be comfortable sending the read to any one of the servers. We can read from a secondary if we want to. So this is a separate spec, just for knowing how to select a server. And for it's very simple for writes, obviously there's only one we can talk to. But again, for a single-threaded driver, we don't have a background thread. So the server selection is kind of integrated with the monitoring. They have to happen in the same logic.
And so how this fits in with PHP, if this is a basic script, we construct a client, we get a collection which is basically a table, drop and insert and do a find. In the very old driver, and even the new one, people expected that the first communication with the server would happen when we construct a client. We're actually, in the PHP driver, we're deferring that until we actually need to talk to a server, so you have no IO happening when we construct a client, it's the first time we know that we have to talk to a server is when we're going to start monitoring, try to get a server for the operation. So the first operation here is going to be trying to run a drop command, which is a DDL, a database definition language command to drop the collection. That needs a writeable server so that at that point we say we need a primary, I'm going to go discover what the topology is, get a primary, monitoring starts. So the first exception you'd have if there was no network connection, it would be from the drop command.
And if you're curious, this is all the output. So it's just inserting and dumping out the data. And so this is internally what happens, we construct, we have a higher level composer package that wraps our php extension. And then server selection, if we look inside what the drop command does, you see the first thing it does is, I need a primary server and then I'll run the operation.
And so that's basically trusting the php driver to do monitoring and knowing that it's a bit less efficient than if we had background threads, it would certainly be better, but we have to basically do it on demand when we need to do certain, when we need to access a server.
So, as far as configuring how all this works, there's different use cases, some people's applications want to fail quickly, other people's applications you want the most, you want to avoid errors at all costs and you are comfortable waiting for that. So there's a lot of different options and flags available and these are things that you would pass when you construct your client.
So the first one that I mentioned earlier is your connect timeout, and this is when we do initial socket timeout. I'm sorry, the initial timeout in milliseconds for opening the connection. And you'll find this, I think every other stream or database driver has something similar to this. And there, our default, which is, probably you would want to lower this considerably, is 10 seconds, which is a safe legacy value. Generally for this value, I think you'd want to customize it to a little bit above your latency to your server. So if your servers are within one second ping time, and usually maybe there are like 50 or a hundred milliseconds. So I might use 250 milliseconds for this. And maybe double it, but certainly keep it below 10 seconds because what you want to optimize for is if I start the php driver and I try and do something and there's no server at all, I don't want to wait 10 seconds, I'd like to fail sooner.
And the second thing is
socketTimeoutMS. And this defaults to a comically high 300 seconds. And this is more because of, we use the C driver internally. That's the default. This is the MongoDB driver's equivalent to - in php - the
default_socket_timeout. Since our driver no longer uses, originally we did use php streams internally, and this did apply, and now we do the socket IO ourselves. So now we have our own value for this. So it is separate from php's default socket timeout. But the two things you want to consider are what is your socket timeout for other things that you're doing in php. And then secondly, what is your script's max execution time. So on a command line at zero, it will run forever, which is helpful with a large, when you're installing things on composer, it tends to take a while. And for a web environment, I believe max execution time is usually 30 seconds, which is still a long time to service the request, but you generally don't, you want this to not exceed your
max_execution_time. So I would also recommend probably lowering this to 30 seconds.
And as far as monitoring, and this is the stuff that's happening in the background, but you have some control over this. We can control how frequently you want monitoring to happen. So a single-threaded driver, we do this less frequently, so once a minute, and we save state between requests. So if you're serving a quick php request and you just constructed the driver, you're not going to hit 60 seconds. This is more for controlling if your PHP workers serves hundreds of requests, maybe 40 or 50 requests down the line, at some point we're going to realize that it's been 60 seconds and we just want to go talk to the servers and see if we have a good sense, if they're the same topology that we knew about a minute ago.
And this helps insulate us form errors, it detects changes if you were to, uh, one of the benefits of MongoDB is that you can scale up and down while your application is running. So if you were to add more members to your replica set or the shard cluster, at the very least, the driver would find out in 60 seconds, 60 seconds intervals.
And the second is a socket check. And this is a special thing for single-threaded drivers as well. In PHP's case we might have a worker that serves a php request and then doesn't get used again for another 30 or maybe five minutes. Who knows, because you have a pool of workers. So in this case, before we use a socket, if it's been longer than five seconds, we'll just see if it's still valid and that's, that way we can recover internally before you get an exception in your application. These can both be configured if you need to, but generally these are good as they are.
And the most relevant things to your application is going to be server selection. So when the driver tries to select a server and we see that happens every time you do an operation, if you're doing a write, we're trying to select the primary, the two main things that you want to focus on here are the server selection timeout, and the try once behavior. And so by default, a threaded driver will wait up to 30 seconds when it tries to do an operation because it has a background thread for monitoring. If your Java application is trying to talk to the database, it will spend up to 30 seconds trying to find a server to talk to, and that's not as bad as it sounds because they have their monitoring constantly in the background so they very quickly pick up changes and they have connection pools so they constantly have available sockets.
And again, php has neither, we have one connection to a server and we use that one socket to do both monitoring and for your application needs. So therefore, we have a behavior that allows us to fail fast. So if we try and talk to a server and it doesn't exist, we immediately throw an exception. And the reason we do this is because, consider the case where we didn't, and we allowed PHP to block up the 30 seconds looking for a server. Your php workers would start piling up, opening more connections and trying to talk to servers that they can't reach, maybe there was a fail-over and so there is no primary, it might take a five or 10 seconds for a new election to happen for the database cluster to heal itself. And meanwhile, you're constantly opening new php workers. So your app servers are getting backed up and you're not serving requests any faster either. And so the most consistent behavior, even though it's maybe not the best thing for MongoDB's case because it can heal itself, the cluster can heal itself, but because of, to cater to php's unique needs, it's better to just throw an exception immediately as the default behavior. And so that's the behavior that we've had historically. And so we kept it with the newer driver that we rewrote about three years ago.
Okay, I'm gonna talk a little bit about later when it turns into deciding how to retry from errors, we can change that behavior and how to go about changing that without. It's not as simple as just deciding to, say try once false and then I'll start waiting 30 seconds. We definitely want to do that intelligently.
Okay. Just do a time check. Twenty minutes. Halfway point. Okay. So some application concepts, before we get into error handling and transactions. These are things that... concepts that the drivers provide and I don't think they have analogies in a relational databases, but possibly other, um, other non-relational databases.
The first is a write concern, and in this case, ideally a production app is talking to a replication cluster, so your data is being written to the primary and then replicated to the secondary nodes. And again, to give us insurance so that if this guy dies, one of these folks can step up and be the new primary. And in some cases they might sync directly from the primary and in this, yeah, in this case, they're both reading from the primary, but they're not all getting the data at the same time because they basically tail the activity on the primary. When you use a write concern and you issue a write to the database, by default, we'll send it to the primary and if it succeeds, the driver gets back control, you go on and do your business. And you're not really waiting for it to replicate. But ideally, consider the case where you wrote to the primary and the data you inserted didn't get a chance to replicate. And then the primary died. From your application's perspective you think everything's succeeded. Uh, when in reality it's possible that that data permanently got destroyed with the primary. And when one of these secondaries steps up, the data is basically not there anymore because it was never replicated.
So the way to control this in an application, and this is always at the expense of, if you want more durability in a distributed system, you're going to wait longer for it. And so you're gonna decide to use this. Some things are more important than other things. If someone is doing a financial transaction, you would like to make sure that the data is persisted and can survive any kind of disaster scenario. And so the write concern you would want to use is just saying I'm concerned with how this write gets acknowledged in the system - would be a
majority write concern. And this is a, you can either use a number, but
majority is a nice string that if you grow your replica set to seven nodes or 10 nodes, it's always going to be the majority number of them, which, and as long as the majority have acknowledged the write, it can survive any disaster scenario. So if we used majority here, the driver would not get a response until at least one secondary, at least two nodes have acknowledged the write. So this is generally what you want to use. And again, it is a tradeoff: if you did this for every write in your application, you're probably wasting time. But there's probably some things in your application that aren't as important to wait for. If you're doing a log messages or small tweets, it's not as important as someone updating their password or storing a billing address or something like that.
On the flip side, we have a read concern, and this is when we're querying the data: do I just want to go to the primary and read whatever's available? Or do I want to make sure that I also read data that is acknowledged by the majority of the system? And so as one applies the writes, the read concern is obviously going to make your query slower because maybe you're waiting for the data to be replicated or there's, you're going to purposely read a bit older data that is safe to read because it exists throughout the cluster instead of the immediate write that was just written only to the primary. So this is a lot to take in, and it's something to research on your own and find what works best for your use case. But I will call out the
linearizable. This was something that was introduced about two years ago and if anyone is familiar with the Jepsen tests, which is the call me maybe distributed database tests, a guy, Kyle Kingsbury runs a kind of a test framework for basically experimenting with databases and finding out all the ways, how to break them basically. And so he had tested an older version of MongoDB years ago. He's tested many databases over the years and predictably the older version of MongoDB did not get a glowing review. And he found all sorts of ways to break it and like write to the database and shut down some nodes and realize that your data disappeared. And so this was something that around the time of Mongo 3.4, which is about two years ago, they put a lot of effort into addressing and making sure that we can pass that test suite.
And now that, his test framework is now part of our CI system. So versions since 3.4 have been able to satisfy this. This is important maybe to people on hacker news. As for everyone's, for your individual app, does every individual app need these kinds of guarantees? Of linearizability basically being able to, everything you write and being able to read it back immediately, and having those very strong guarantees? Not for every use case. But the functionality is there if you need it, and it goes without saying that the more guarantees you get, these are going to be slower than just reading,
local is basically just reading whatever the primary has for you. But know that those exist and when you need those extra guarantees, there is functionality available to obtain them.
And so because these things tend to take longer, I advise not to use socket timeouts. We don't want to leave... using socket timeouts as a way to abandon operations on a remote database is probably a bad idea, whether it's MongoDB or SQL. If you start a long query and the driver just goes away and ignores it. You're letting something continue to run on the database and now it's basically kind of a Zombie process until the database server realizes that no one's ever going to get the result for that. So we really don't want to use socket timeouts to limit our operations. MongoDB provides... all the operations that talk to a database, you can specify a time. And this basically corresponds to CPU time that the server will kill the operation if it goes too far.
And now this is, socket timeouts are exact. If you tell your drivers, say I want to give up after 10 seconds, it's exactly 10 seconds for the, on the client side, whereas
maxTimeMS is a bit softer. It's saying that I'm allowing this to run for 10 seconds of processing time on the remote side. So this may end around 11 seconds or 12 seconds. So you don't want to set this exactly to whatever your socket timeout is. But if you have long running operations, this will ensure that you at least also don't leave them, even if the client does give up, you don't leave them running on the remote side. And so this you can apply to reads and writes, but for write concerns I mentioned when you're waiting for replication, in that case, just to take us back to this, this "Apply" step is the operation succeeding. So this would be your
maxTimeMS. But then waiting for the replication to happen is a whole separate thing. That's the operation succeeded, but you're still, just going to wait before it returns to the driver. So that's known as a
wTimeout. And that's another thing you can say: if you're using the
majority write concern, you might want to... you know, that your writes are going to be quick, but you also don't want to wait forever for replication to happen. And so in this case, you will be able to distinguish: did my write actually succeed? So I inserted successfully, there was no duplicate key error. But at the same token, we timed out waiting for replication. Does that mean that my write didn't succeed at all? No, it succeeded, but you're not guaranteed at that moment that it had replicated. It's probably still going to replicate if nothing, no servers died. So this is, we might, you might call this a soft error instead of a harder error of the data actually not entering. You have a message?
A causal consistency, a causal consistency is basically being able to read your own writes if you write something, there's like a linear progression of data. So if you write to the database, being able to read your stuff back of the previous operation. So there's an ordering component to that. So whenever an operation logically depends on the thing before, there's a causal relationship for it. And so the different guarantees there, one is being able to read your own writes, which is, and when you have a standalone system where it's just one database server, you implicitly have this. But when we add distributed nodes and there's replication and things like happening, it gets a lot more complicated to make these guarantees and that's when things get slower. So in a replica set, the idea of causal consistency is not only reading own writes, but they're monotonic. So that means if they get applied in the order that they are executed by the driver, writes follow reads. So if you were to read some data and then write, do write after that, that write is being applied to the same data on the database side that you had previously read in the driver. So just, logically, this is how we expect things to work. So it doesn't take, it's not hard to grasp what this is, but it's something I think of, we take this for granted basically when we're working with standalone databases where there's only one node.
And so this, there's
majority read and write concerns. This basically can be satisfied by using those. And
durability is the idea that when I write something it will survive: it's durable and that it will survive if we pull the plug on the primary, it's been replicated. So it's durable: can survive an error. And in your application, we can make use of this. The driver provides a session object. We can pass this around to operations and this provides this functionality if you need it. There's plenty of examples for that.
So I mentioned sessions. This is a relatively new feature within the last year or so. Sessions are a way... so previously operations in MongoDB were tied to the connection. And so once we lose the connection, the server has no, doesn't remember us at all, that's our, the queries that were running or any writes that we did, they were tied to our connection. Assuming they didn't, if they made it, if they were applied, that's different. But if any state that we had about who was connecting to us was only based on the connection. So sessions allow us - much like php sessions - give us some state beyond just connecting to the database. And so sessions we can be, we can create them explicitly and we can pass them around to operations. Internally, the driver also, anything we talk to the server now, if it's a new enough MongoDB 3.6 or later, we're going to send a session with it and make sure every operation that we execute is tied to some session. That gives us an extra way to, uh, as a system administrator, to monitor operations that are long running. We can, instead of just having to, instead of getting orphan things, we can, the server keeps track of sessions and they can be cleaned up, clean up like Zombie queries and things like that.
And then this plays into our ability to retry things. And so, another quick time check 10 minutes remaining. So this was something that I pulled out of an old version of Doctrine MongoDB. Please don't do this. This is just the retry loop. It takes the closure, how many times you want to retry it and will continually try to call the closure until it doesn't throw an exception. So I assure you Doctrine MongoDB has never, the ODM has never used this for writing. It's used this for opening connections and doing queries. But that's still bad because if you're doing queries, we really don't know if the query is still running on the server.
So this doesn't exist anymore. I think it was deleted. But what's the problem with retrying anything? We get an exception, why don't we just retry it? And this is something you can apply to any database. So we have to be aware that read and write operations, they can change the state of the system. So read can leave the query... I mentioned if you have a socket timeout of like five seconds you start query, that's going to take five minutes to run, right? The driver gives up, it goes on and does other things in php land, but the server, it says: "oh, I'm gonna work on this hard for you for next five minutes because you really need this response". And then by the time it tries to give it to you, it realizes, oh, that bastard went away.
And that's just a query case. In a write case it's kind of more dangerous: instead of just wasting resources on the server, a write operation, if it's not idempotent, which means we can't safely run it multiple times, we have the risk of, think of a write operation that does an increment. It maybe, it's an innocuous, it's not really a problem, but if you were to just retry the increment operation, you don't know if you're accidentally over counting or under counting. So at best we're wasting time and resources, at worst we're making the data inaccurate. So we want to really think about how we approach this.
So the different kind of errors, first you want to ask before we decide to retry: what are the kinds of errors that we're trying to address? So I think there's three types of errors and one is a transient error. I think of that as: we dropped the network connection or the primary stepped down because it was under maintenance and a secondary stepped up. This is a kind of a self-healing scenario, it will resolve itself if we try it again, probably. Then there's a persistent outage, which is like the whole data center shut down, but you really can't do anything about that. But we really can't, we don't know the difference between these until we at least try maybe once or twice. And if we retry and there's no changes, we can assume that what we thought was a transient error is probably a persistent outage. And lastly, there's a command error. This is: we did something, the database came back to us with a result and said, you're an idiot, you did this wrong. So in that case, if you're trying to insert something and it says your command is malformed, you don't want to retry the command, you're probably gonna get the same response. In fact, I think the definition of insanity would be retrying in that case and expecting a different result.
So those are your three types of errors and what we really want to optimize for - we really can't do anything about this - this is either change the code or actually this is an error for the user. Persistent outage, we probably, maybe someone will get a page and they'll fix it, but our application probably can't do anything about that either. But we can optimize for this: this is really the case, the transient errors, what we want to handle.
So retryable errors is either gonna be a network error or maybe a response from the server that indicates that it's a transient error. So, if the primary was coming down for maintenance, it might be totally offline - we got a network error - or it might be alive for a bit and realizing that, Hey, I'm shutting down, here's a response and I'm telling you that I'm no longer the primary. And so those are two cases. This is usually caused by, there's maintenance or there's a failover happening and we managed to talk to the server before they, before they totally disappeared. But this is probably the most common one: it's just going to be the network error. This is more of a timing coincidence.
And so from a retrying reads, I'd say we want to avoid leaving long-running things running on the server. So queries that return a single doc if you're just querying by id or a single response, you can retry those, right? Those aren't very expensive queries. If you know, it's a short run query, and this is your personal use case and maybe you're just returning one batch of documents or you know, it's gonna just run for maybe a second or two. Those may be safe to retry. And as of MongoDB 4.2, which will be coming out later in the year, the driver is going to try to automatically retry operations, any kind of read operation, even if it's a long running query. And this is because these server will have now functionalities that, you know, the connection was abandoned so I can abort the operation. So this kind of addresses the, we're going to leave some long running operation accidentally running - the queries are going to churn for five minutes while we gave up. So that'll avoid that. What we still can't do is if you're iterating a large batch on an existing query, what we do
getMore() is when you iterate on your results. We can't retry that because those are forward-only iteration, so that doesn't work. But the initial find command or the aggregate command, we can retry that.
And now writes are a bit more complicated because not all writes are idempotent. But given a few things, so sessions are cluster-wide, so they, I mentioned that before, uh, they keep track of our state long after our connection dies. Every operation is associated with a session and we can also give it an id, which I'm just inventing now, just trust me, this is, we're just every session we'll just have, the driver will increment some id value just so we can uniquely identify everything. And then we also already have monitoring and server selection I talked about. So we can rely on monitoring. If the primary disappears, we can go back to monitoring and say I need a new primary. So we can rely on safely retrying things, so if you're doing updating a single document, inserting a single document, or doing a batch of those operations, they're all, each one is uniquely identified and we can continually send them to the server and trust it to do the right thing, which means since they're all uniquely identified, if the server gets the write and realizes: "Hey, I never applied this", it's going to do it and return the result. And if it already applied it, it knows that it did so and it's going to return the result that we didn't get the first time, maybe because there was a network error.
So this basically gives us a safe way to do stuff and we like to call this at most once a. So any of the write that we retry, we want them to happen at most once and because at most once that might be zero times if there is a persistent failure and we just can't talk to the server.
And so this really wants, again in php, the try once, doesn't work with try once because we want to actively monitor the server for a loop. So because we want to talk to the server, the default behavior would just give up if we can't find a primary because php wants to fail fast, it's not going to wait a few seconds for an election to happen and for a new primary to step up. So to really make good use of retryable writes, we want to enable, we want to disable the try once behavior in your write. And there's a link here, of a gist where I demonstrate how to do this. And I also tuned the timeout value down from 30 seconds a bit lower. And this is basically our user Atlas cloud service. I keep spamming update statements to it and I initiate a failover and take the primary down and if you could watch the logs of the script, it doesn't generate any errors. When the primary comes down it certainly waits about eight or nine seconds for the election to happen, but if you want your app totally insulated from errors that, in that case we can avoid exceptions entirely, which is really nice. In Doctrine, in ODM's case, most of all the updates it does, it doesn't do
updateMany, so this is a great use case for Doctrine to take advantage of retryable writes.
Okay. 60% of the time... it works every time. Generally it's going to improve things, but again, it's, we can't resolve the other... it's about transient errors, it's not about the other important things that we can't change.
So lastly, I'm a little bit over time, I'll try and do this in three minutes. Transactions, this is our actually ACID compliant transactions. And so getting to this point, goes back a number of years and adding features slowly to the database and ultimately sessions, and then 4.0 is the most recent release with transactions on replica sets. And then in the summer it will be transactions on shard clusters. I cannot emphasize the complexity involved with transactions on shard clusters. Replica sets is a bit easier, but I don't, this is above my pay grade. So transactions at a glance, when we do a transaction, you're probably doing a transaction because of writes. So the entire transaction has to go to the same node and because it's a transaction and you're probably doing writes, that means the primary, it doesn't really make sense to do a transaction with just reads. Your read and write concern instead of per-operation, you do that for the entire transaction. So everything has to have the same level of guarantees around it. And that's important to the concept of a transaction because it's either all going to work or it's, none of it's going to work.
And while you can do many operations there are some things you can't do, you can't create collections or drop tables. But all your basic crud operations, your aggregation frameworks and stuff, you can certainly, those are all supported intentionally because that's the common use case.
So in php it looks pretty straightforward and I'm not using custom write concerns or read concerns here to keep it simple. But from our client, we can make a session object and that's our gateway to start and commit things. And you want to make sure you pass your session to all the operations. If I forgot the pass this here, then this
insertOne() is not associated with the transaction it's actually just going to run immediately. So that's kind of
And now the important thing is transactions can be retried. And so, the driver is able, if a commit or an abort command fails because of a socket error, we can retry that, and we'll do that for you once, just to try and insulate you. And if there's a quick error that we can recover from, great. Uh, if you want, you can retry committing more times if you want. If you want to do that in a loop until it succeeds or retry any number of times. We don't bother retrying other operations that's left to you to decide if you want to do that. And the other important thing is transactions and retryable writes are two completely separate things. So retryable writes was implemented first and that's meant to be used - you can throw that into any application and kind of, it just works for a lot of your write activity. Transactions are something you're opting into and the transactions were really the main idea that the main goal that we had to get to, and retryable writes was something quickly we were able to do along the way. Uh, so keep in mind that, they are separate concepts that are mutually exclusive even though they kind of use the same internal machinery.
But the important thing is if the entire transaction fails or if an operation inside the transaction fails, you can restart. You can restart the transaction from the beginning. So if we were doing a transaction and say this second insert failed, I can catch that exception and then try and restart the whole thing. And so the important thing you want to do here is probably have your stuff in a closure or a function call that you can call and wrap with a start and commit. So you can catch an exception and you can retry quite easily, or do a while loop if you really like the procedural style.
So knowing when to retry. Our exceptions in the driver, there's two different labels. Why not? Gruber seems to agree with me. So transaction errors, we need a way to highlight errors from the driver and know with more than just the exception message or code. So having a label, um, there's two labels out of the gate and one of them, this is, if an exception is thrown during a commit, the exception, having this label tells you that you can retry the commit.
And this is a label that you might get on any runtime exception in your code. So those insert ones might throw an exception with this label and that means things have failed and if you want to retry it, start from the top again and start from, start transaction and try and go through the whole process again. There's examples of how to do this. It's very hairy. So something that we're trying to do in the next few months is have a convenience methods so that you just give us a closure and we'll run it and do all the try catching and retrying for you. But if you want to wrap your head around the annoying try-catch nonsense that you have to do, for handling this, you can take a look at the documentation currently has that and we're going to adapt it to a better API.
Alright. So these are some resources. I will share the slides. This was an older presentation I did, just on if you want to know about retryable writes. There's a lot of good diagrams and stuff in here. This is a lot of relevant documentation you'll want to read up on the subjects we talked about. And this is my coworker's presentation from many years ago before we had retryable writes. So if you're using MongoDB 2.4 for some reason and you want to retry write operations, he has an approach for what you can retry and how to do so responsibly. Thank you. Please leave me some feedback later. I'll see you all tonight for jeopardy and I'll stand outside for questions after.
Thank you for your laptop.