Skip to main content

How does consistency levels affects the latency of Azure CosmosDB

Azure Cosmos DB has 5 different consistency levels (Strong / Bounded Stateless / Session / Consistent Prefix / Eventual). Each consistency level can affect the latency of operations that we are doing on the storage.
In this post we will try to respond to the following question:

  • What is the latency impact of different consistency level? 

Latency in general
The current SLAs are offering us the guarantee that the READ and WRITE operation is in 99% of the cases under 10ms. The average latency of the current content fetch from Azure Cosmos DB is under 4ms in 50% of the cases.
The write operations are a little slower, reaching maximum 5ms in 50% of the cases. This is applicable only for Bounded Stateless / Session / Consistent Prefix and Eventual.

For Strong consistency and databases across multiple regions, the latency is higher, but this is expected because of the replication requirements. For example if you have Strong consistency on a database that is replicated in two different regions the latency would be equal to 2 roundtrips time between of the hardest regions plus the 10ms latency in 99% of the cases. The extra 10ms comes from the read operation (confirmation) required to ensure that the read operation was done with success.
There is also a thing that you need to take into account:

  • There is NO SLA for the latency between two different Azure Regions.
This means that it is impossible to calculate and have an SLA for Strong consistency. The total latency will be in most of the cases:
  • Strong consistency for 2 regions = 10ms + 2 * roundtrips between the regions calls
, in 99% of the cases.

NOTE: Replication monitoring  - Microsoft Azure is monitoring the replication latency. The information is available from the Azure Portal (Azure Portal / Metrics/ Consistency Level).

The REAL TEST
Take into account that each time when you will run the same or a different test, the result will be different. There are multiple things that can affect the result, including the machine that it is used to do the test.

I run all the test from a Standard_D5_v2 VM, with 16vCores and 56 of memory. Each test ran for 500.000 times and used concept and methodology from Practical Large-Scale Latency Estimation that I used also in the past for other types of measurements. There was a warm-up time and from the 4% from min and max latency were excluded. The initial collection size was around 100.000 documents with an average size of the document around 50KB.
Please take into account that this are the result that I getter for my sandbox. Does not represents the reality for other cases or for general cases.
The obtained results are extremely good and provided high confidence in the reliability of Azure Cosmos DB.

What about RPO and RTO?
Let's take the first one Recovery Point Objective (RPO). The current SLA is interesting, offering a maximum value of 240 minutes for any type of consistency level or no. of replicas. 
The current RPOs are:
  • Strong / Single Master = 0 mins
  • Session / Multi-master < 15 mins
  • Consistent Prefix / Multi-master < 15 mins
  • Eventual / Multi-master < 15 mins
  • Maximum < 240 mins

The Recovery Time Objective (RTO) is similar, offering us an SLA of maximum of 7 days, with:
  • Session / Multi-master = 0 mins
  • Consistent Prefix / Multi-master = 0 mins
  • Eventual / Multi-master = 0 mins
  • Strong / Single master < 15 mins
  • Session / Single master < 15 mins
Conclusion
The performances level of the system can be impacted directly by what level of consistency level we decide to use. Each consistency level had a direct impact on performance, data consistency and costs. In most of the cases, the Session consistency level is a perfect tradeoff between eventual consistency across all active users and performance.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Windows Docker Containers can make WIN32 API calls, use COM and ASP.NET WebForms

After the last post , I received two interesting questions related to Docker and Windows. People were interested if we do Win32 API calls from a Docker container and if there is support for COM. WIN32 Support To test calls to WIN32 API, let’s try to populate SYSTEM_INFO class. [StructLayout(LayoutKind.Sequential)] public struct SYSTEM_INFO { public uint dwOemId; public uint dwPageSize; public uint lpMinimumApplicationAddress; public uint lpMaximumApplicationAddress; public uint dwActiveProcessorMask; public uint dwNumberOfProcessors; public uint dwProcessorType; public uint dwAllocationGranularity; public uint dwProcessorLevel; public uint dwProcessorRevision; } ... [DllImport("kernel32")] static extern void GetSystemInfo(ref SYSTEM_INFO pSI); ... SYSTEM_INFO pSI = new SYSTEM_INFO(...

How to audit an Azure Cosmos DB

In this post, we will talk about how we can audit an Azure Cosmos DB database. Before jumping into the problem let us define the business requirement: As an Administrator I want to be able to audit all changes that were done to specific collection inside my Azure Cosmos DB. The requirement is simple, but can be a little tricky to implement fully. First of all when you are using Azure Cosmos DB or any other storage solution there are 99% odds that you’ll have more than one system that writes data to it. This means that you have or not have control on the systems that are doing any create/update/delete operations. Solution 1: Diagnostic Logs Cosmos DB allows us activate diagnostics logs and stream the output a storage account for achieving to other systems like Event Hub or Log Analytics. This would allow us to have information related to who, when, what, response code and how the access operation to our Cosmos DB was done. Beside this there is a field that specifies what was th...

Cloud Myths: Cloud is Cheaper (Pill 1 of 5 / Cloud Pills)

Cloud Myths: Cloud is Cheaper (Pill 1 of 5 / Cloud Pills) The idea that moving to the cloud reduces the costs is a common misconception. The cloud infrastructure provides flexibility, scalability, and better CAPEX, but it does not guarantee lower costs without proper optimisation and management of the cloud services and infrastructure. Idle and unused resources, overprovisioning, oversize databases, and unnecessary data transfer can increase running costs. The regional pricing mode, multi-cloud complexity, and cost variety add extra complexity to the cost function. Cloud adoption without a cost governance strategy can result in unexpected expenses. Improper usage, combined with a pay-as-you-go model, can result in a nightmare for business stakeholders who cannot track and manage the monthly costs. Cloud-native services such as AI services, managed databases, and analytics platforms are powerful, provide out-of-the-shelve capabilities, and increase business agility and innovation. H...