> 原文在：[http://www.aosabook.org/en/distsys.html](http://www.aosabook.org/en/distsys.html) > Kate Matsudaira 开源软件如今已成为最大的一些网站的基础组件。随着这些网站的发展，围绕它们的架构出现了许多最佳实践与指导原则。本章将试图阐述设计大规模网站时要考虑的一些关键问题，以及用于实现这些目标（???疑有误）的一些组件。 本章主要讲Web系统，虽然一些内容也适用于其他分布式系统。 **1.1 Web分布式系统设计原则**  构建和运维可扩展网站或者Web应用，到底意味着什么？说到底这些系统只是通过互联网将用户与远程资源连接而已，它们之所以变成可扩展的，是因为资源或者对资源的访问是跨多个服务器分布的。 与现实生活中的大多数事情一样，构建Web服务的过程中花些时间预先计划长期看是有帮助的。理解了大型网站背后的考虑因素和取舍，开发较小的网站时你就能够做出更明智的决策。影响大规模Web系统设计的一些关键原则如下。 * 可用性：网站的正常运行对于许多公司的声誉和运作都是至关重要的。对一些较大的电商而言，网站故障哪怕几分钟也会损失数以万计甚至数以百万计的收入，因此系统设计得能够持续服务，而且能迅速从故障中恢复是技术和业务上最基本的要求。分布式系统中的高可用性要求仔细考虑关键组件的冗余性、在部分系统故障时快速恢复，而且在出问题时能优雅地降级。 -性能：性能对大多数网站而言都已经成为重要因素。网站的速度不仅影响用户的使用和满意度，还会影响搜索引擎排名，这可是与收入和用户保留直接相关的。因此，创建为快速响应和低延迟而优化的系统非常关键。 -可靠性：Reliability: A system needs to be reliable, such that a request for data will consistently return the same data. In the event the data changes or is updated, then that same request should return the new data. Users need to know that if something is written to the system, or stored, it will persist and can be relied on to be in place for future retrieval. -可扩展性：Scalability: When it comes to any large distributed system, size is just one aspect of scale that needs to be considered. Just as important is the effort required to increase capacity to handle greater amounts of load, commonly referred to as the scalability of the system. Scalability can refer to many different parameters of the system: how much additional traffic can it handle, how easy is it to add more storage capacity, or even how many more transactions can be processed. -可管理性：Manageability: Designing a system that is easy to operate is another important consideration. The manageability of the system equates to the scalability of operations: maintenance and updates. Things to consider for manageability are the ease of diagnosing and understanding problems when they occur, ease of making updates or modifications, and how simple the system is to operate. (I.e., does it routinely operate without failure or exceptions?) -成本：Cost: Cost is an important factor. This obviously can include hardware and software costs, but it is also important to consider other facets needed to deploy and maintain the system. The amount of developer time the system takes to build, the amount of operational effort required to run the system, and even the amount of training required should all be considered. Cost is the total cost of ownership. Each of these principles provides the basis for decisions in designing a distributed web architecture. However, they also can be at odds with one another, such that achieving one objective comes at the cost of another. A basic example: choosing to address capacity by simply adding more servers (scalability) can come at the price of manageability (you have to operate an additional server) and cost (the price of the servers). When designing any sort of web application it is important to consider these key principles, even if it is to acknowledge that a design may sacrifice one or more of them. **1.2 基础**  When it comes to system architecture there are a few things to consider: what are the right pieces, how these pieces fit together, and what are the right tradeoffs. Investing in scaling before it is needed is generally not a smart business proposition; however, some forethought into the design can save substantial time and resources in the future. This section is focused on some of the core factors that are central to almost all large web applications: services, redundancy, partitions, and handling failure. Each of these factors involves choices and compromises, particularly in the context of the principles described in the previous section. In order to explain these in detail it is best to start with an example. Example: Image Hosting Application At some point you have probably posted an image online. For big sites that host and deliver lots of images, there are challenges in building an architecture that is cost-effective, highly available, and has low latency (fast retrieval). Imagine a system where users are able to upload their images to a central server, and the images can be requested via a web link or API, just like Flickr or Picasa. For the sake of simplicity, let's assume that this application has two key parts: the ability to upload (write) an image to the server, and the ability to query for an image. While we certainly want the upload to be efficient, we care most about having very fast delivery when someone requests an image (for example, images could be requested for a web page or other application). This is very similar functionality to what a web server or Content Delivery Network (CDN) edge server (a server CDN uses to store content in many locations so content is geographically/physically closer to users, resulting in faster performance) might provide. Other important aspects of the system are: There is no limit to the number of images that will be stored, so storage scalability, in terms of image count needs to be considered. There needs to be low latency for image downloads/requests. If a user uploads an image, the image should always be there (data reliability for images). The system should be easy to maintain (manageability). Since image hosting doesn't have high profit margins, the system needs to be cost-effective Figure 1.1 is a simplified diagram of the functionality. Figure 1.1: Simplified architecture diagram for image hosting application In this image hosting example, the system must be perceivably fast, its data stored reliably and all of these attributes highly scalable. Building a small version of this application would be trivial and easily hosted on a single server; however, that would not be interesting for this chapter. Let's assume that we want to build something that could grow as big as Flickr. Services When considering scalable system design, it helps to decouple functionality and think about each part of the system as its own service with a clearly defined interface. In practice, systems designed in this way are said to have a Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA). For these types of systems, each service has its own distinct functional context, and interaction with anything outside of that context takes place through an abstract interface, typically the public-facing API of another service. Deconstructing a system into a set of complementary services decouples the operation of those pieces from one another. This abstraction helps establish clear relationships between the service, its underlying environment, and the consumers of that service. Creating these clear delineations can help isolate problems, but also allows each piece to scale independently of one another. This sort of service-oriented design for systems is very similar to object-oriented design for programming. In our example, all requests to upload and retrieve images are processed by the same server; however, as the system needs to scale it makes sense to break out these two functions into their own services. Fast-forward and assume that the service is in heavy use; such a scenario makes it easy to see how longer writes will impact the time it takes to read the images (since they two functions will be competing for shared resources). Depending on the architecture this effect can be substantial. Even if the upload and download speeds are the same (which is not true of most IP networks, since most are designed for at least a 3:1 download-speed:upload-speed ratio), read files will typically be read from cache, and writes will have to go to disk eventually (and perhaps be written several times in eventually consistent situations). Even if everything is in memory or read from disks (like SSDs), database writes will almost always be slower than reads. (Pole Position, an open source tool for DB benchmarking, http://polepos.org/ and results http://polepos.sourceforge.net/results/PolePositionClientServer.pdf.). Another potential problem with this design is that a web server like Apache or lighttpd typically has an upper limit on the number of simultaneous connections it can maintain (defaults are around 500, but can go much higher) and in high traffic, writes can quickly consume all of those. Since reads can be asynchronous, or take advantage of other performance optimizations like gzip compression or chunked transfer encoding, the web server can switch serve reads faster and switch between clients quickly serving many more requests per second than the max number of connections (with Apache and max connections set to 500, it is not uncommon to serve several thousand read requests per second). Writes, on the other hand, tend to maintain an open connection for the duration for the upload, so uploading a 1MB file could take more than 1 second on most home networks, so that web server could only handle 500 such simultaneous writes. Figure 1.2: Splitting out reads and writes Planning for this sort of bottleneck makes a good case to split out reads and writes of images into their own services, shown in Figure 1.2\. This allows us to scale each of them independently (since it is likely we will always do more reading than writing), but also helps clarify what is going on at each point. Finally, this separates future concerns, which would make it easier to troubleshoot and scale a problem like slow reads. The advantage of this approach is that we are able to solve problems independently of one another—we don't have to worry about writing and retrieving new images in the same context. Both of these services still leverage the global corpus of images, but they are free to optimize their own performance with service-appropriate methods (for example, queuing up requests, or caching popular images—more on this below). And from a maintenance and cost perspective each service can scale independently as needed, which is great because if they were combined and intermingled, one could inadvertently impact the performance of the other as in the scenario discussed above. Of course, the above example can work well when you have two different endpoints (in fact this is very similar to several cloud storage providers' implementations and Content Delivery Networks). There are lots of ways to address these types of bottlenecks though, and each has different tradeoffs. For example, Flickr solves this read/write issue by distributing users across different shards such that each shard can only handle a set number of users, and as users increase more shards are added to the cluster (see the presentation on Flickr's scaling, http://mysqldba.blogspot.com/2008/04/mysql-uc-2007-presentation-file.html). In the first example it is easier to scale hardware based on actual usage (the number of reads and writes across the whole system), whereas Flickr scales with their user base (but forces the assumption of equal usage across users so there can be extra capacity). In the former an outage or issue with one of the services brings down functionality across the whole system (no-one can write files, for example), whereas an outage with one of Flickr's shards will only affect those users. In the first example it is easier to perform operations across the whole dataset—for example, updating the write service to include new metadata or searching across all image metadata—whereas with the Flickr architecture each shard would need to be updated or searched (or a search service would need to be created to collate that metadata—which is in fact what they do). When it comes to these systems there is no right answer, but it helps to go back to the principles at the start of this chapter, determine the system needs (heavy reads or writes or both, level of concurrency, queries across the data set, ranges, sorts, etc.), benchmark different alternatives, understand how the system will fail, and have a solid plan for when failure happens. Redundancy In order to handle failure gracefully a web architecture must have redundancy of its services and data. For example, if there is only one copy of a file stored on a single server, then losing that server means losing that file. Losing data is seldom a good thing, and a common way of handling it is to create multiple, or redundant, copies. This same principle also applies to services. If there is a core piece of functionality for an application, ensuring that multiple copies or versions are running simultaneously can secure against the failure of a single node. Creating redundancy in a system can remove single points of failure and provide a backup or spare functionality if needed in a crisis. For example, if there are two instances of the same service running in production, and one fails or degrades, the system can failover to the healthy copy. Failover can happen automatically or require manual intervention. Another key part of service redundancy is creating a shared-nothing architecture. With this architecture, each node is able to operate independently of one another and there is no central "brain" managing state or coordinating activities for the other nodes. This helps a lot with scalability since new nodes can be added without special conditions or knowledge. However, and most importantly, there is no single point of failure in these systems, so they are much more resilient to failure. For example, in our image server application, all images would have redundant copies on another piece of hardware somewhere (ideally in a different geographic location in the event of a catastrophe like an earthquake or fire in the data center), and the services to access the images would be redundant, all potentially servicing requests. (See Figure 1.3.) (Load balancers are a great way to make this possible, but there is more on that below). Figure 1.3: Image hosting application with redundancy Partitions There may be very large data sets that are unable to fit on a single server. It may also be the case that an operation requires too many computing resources, diminishing performance and making it necessary to add capacity. In either case you have two choices: scale vertically or horizontally. Scaling vertically means adding more resources to an individual server. So for a very large data set, this might mean adding more (or bigger) hard drives so a single server can contain the entire data set. In the case of the compute operation, this could mean moving the computation to a bigger server with a faster CPU or more memory. In each case, vertical scaling is accomplished by making the individual resource capable of handling more on its own. To scale horizontally, on the other hand, is to add more nodes. In the case of the large data set, this might be a second server to store parts of the data set, and for the computing resource it would mean splitting the operation or load across some additional nodes. To take full advantage of horizontal scaling, it should be included as an intrinsic design principle of the system architecture, otherwise it can be quite cumbersome to modify and separate out the context to make this possible. When it comes to horizontal scaling, one of the more common techniques is to break up your services into partitions, or shards. The partitions can be distributed such that each logical set of functionality is separate; this could be done by geographic boundaries, or by another criteria like non-paying versus paying users. The advantage of these schemes is that they provide a service or data store with added capacity. In our image server example, it is possible that the single file server used to store images could be replaced by multiple file servers, each containing its own unique set of images. (See Figure 1.4.) Such an architecture would allow the system to fill each file server with images, adding additional servers as the disks become full. The design would require a naming scheme that tied an image's filename to the server containing it. An image's name could be formed from a consistent hashing scheme mapped across the servers. Or alternatively, each image could be assigned an incremental ID, so that when a client makes a request for an image, the image retrieval service only needs to maintain the range of IDs that are mapped to each of the servers (like an index). Figure 1.4: Image hosting application with redundancy and partitioning Of course there are challenges distributing data or functionality across multiple servers. One of the key issues is data locality; in distributed systems the closer the data to the operation or point of computation, the better the performance of the system. Therefore it is potentially problematic to have data spread across multiple servers, as any time it is needed it may not be local, forcing the servers to perform a costly fetch of the required information across the network. Another potential issue comes in the form of inconsistency. When there are different services reading and writing from a shared resource, potentially another service or data store, there is the chance for race conditions—where some data is supposed to be updated, but the read happens prior to the update—and in those cases the data is inconsistent. For example, in the image hosting scenario, a race condition could occur if one client sent a request to update the dog image with a new title, changing it from "Dog" to "Gizmo", but at the same time another client was reading the image. In that circumstance it is unclear which title, "Dog" or "Gizmo", would be the one received by the second client. There are certainly some obstacles associated with partitioning data, but partitioning allows each problem to be split—by data, load, usage patterns, etc.—into manageable chunks. This can help with scalability and manageability, but is not without risk. There are lots of ways to mitigate risk and handle failures; however, in the interest of brevity they are not covered in this chapter. If you are interested in reading more, you can check out my blog post on fault tolerance and monitoring.