I have a Lambda function bound to CodeBuild notifications; a Lambda instance writes details of the notification that triggered it to a DynamoDB table (BillingMode PAY_PER_REQUEST)
Each CodeBuild notification spawns an independent Lambda instance. A CodeBuild build can spawn 7-8 separate notifications/Lambda instances, many of which often happen simultaneously.
The Lambda function uses DynamoDB:PutItem to put details of the notification to DynamoDB. What I find is that out of 7-8 notifications in a 30 second period, sometimes all 7-8 get written to DynamoDB, but sometimes it can be as low as 0-1; many calls to DynamoDB:PutItem simply seem to be "ignored".
Why is this happening?
My guess is that DynamoDB simply shouldn't be accessed by multiple Lambda instances in this way; that best practice is to push the updates to a SQS queue bound to a separate Lambda, and have that separate Lambda write many updates to DynamoDB as part of a transaction.
Is that right? Why might parallel independent calls to DynamoDB:PutItem fail silently?
TIA.
DynamoDB uses a web endpoint and for that reason it can handle any number of concurrent connections, so the issue is not with how many Lambdas are writing.
I typically see this happen when users do not allow the Lambda to wait until the API requests are complete and the container gets shut down prematurely. I would first check your code and ensure that your lambda is staying alive for all items to be processed, you can do this by adding some simple logging in your code.
What you are describing is a good use case for Step Functions.
As much as Lambda functions are great to glue between services, they have their overheads and their limitations. With Step Functions, you can call directly to DynamoDB:PutItem, and you can handle various scenarios and flows, such as Async calls. These flows are possible to implement in a Lambda function, however with less visibility and with less traceability.
BTW, you can also call a Lambda function from Step Functions, however, I recommend you to try and use the direct service call to maximize the benefits of the Step Functions service.
My mistake, I had a separate issue which was messing up some of the range keys and causing updates to "fail" silently. But thx for the tip regarding timeouts
Related
Is there a good way to orchestrate lambda functionality that changes based on a queue message? I was thinking about taking a similar approach described in the strategy pattern.
The lambda function is polling an SQS queue. The queue message would contain some context that is passed into a lambda telling it what workflow needs to be executed. Based on this message, the lambda would execute some corresponding script.
The idea behind this is that I can write code for different ad hoc jobs and use the same queue + lambda function for these jobs but have it delegate the work. This way, I can track unsuccessful jobs in a dead letter queue. Are there any red flags here or potential pitfalls I should be aware of when you hear this? Any advice would be appreciated. TIA!
EDIT: For some additional context, this different workflows triggered by this lambda will vary in compute resources needed. An example is ingesting a large dataset from an api call and doing some custom schematization on the contents before making an api call.
This is indeed possible, but there's a variety of approaches you may take. These depend on what type of workflow/processing you require.
As you highlight, Lambda could be used for this. It's worth noting that Lambda functions do not work well for computationally-intensive tasks.
If you were looking to perform a workflow with some complexity, you should consider AWS Step Functions. Suppose you had three "tasks" to choose from, you could define a Step Function for each, then use Lambda to (1.) receive the message & work out which task is required, then (2.) start an execution for the desired Step Function.
FYI, you don't need to make your Lambda function poll the SQS queue, instead, you can set up SQS to automatically trigger Lambda once a new message is added to the queue. See AWS Docs - Configuring a queue to trigger an AWS Lambda function.
If you edit your question with more info on what you're looking to do (processing-wise) with each message, people will be able to better help with your use-case.
Best of luck! :)
Suppose, I have an api POST /order which invokes PlaceOrder lambda and expects response from this. PlaceOrder lambda does some works, invokes another lambda ProcessPayment lambda and expects response. Also, ProcessPayment invokes CreateInvoice lambda expecting response. Whole architecture is like a RequestResponse cycle. I woulde like to achieve that without lambda invoking another lambda as it is considered as anti-pattern. My question is what is the best design pattern to achieve this behavior within 29 seconds with event-driven architecture.
What AWS suggests: As per this official documentation, they suggests to use SQS. But regarding using SQS, I have some thoughts.
My thoughts:
At event sources architecture, I can orchestrate these lambdas with SQS, SNS etc other event sources, but in that case, the nature would not be synchronous and thus I would not get response from the api.
My other solution:
Using Step Function: I can orchestrate this workflow with step function, and I think it is more elegant solution in this synchronous calling case. But I would like to achieve
this via event sources.
How can I design this scenerio with best practices using event-based achitecture?
In an Event-Driven Architecture, the communication between producers and consumers is asynchronous by design, that's the way the architecture scales.
You can get nearly synchronous communication between 2 services in an EDA, by creating dedicated queues / channels to communicate between them, make sure they're scaled up to a level where the latency is acceptable (close to synchronous values).
This adds some complexity, because the services which need responses, have to wait in a hot-loop to get them as soon as possible, and also if messages are lost, you need to have retry policies, etc.
I think you need to focus more on the mechanics of your program and a bit less on design patterns. You need to use the design patterns that fit your use-case, the other way around will not work. In the end, you build a program to fulfill a certain task or set of tasks, so that should be your end goal.
You’re stating that you have a process order Lambda, a create invoice Lambda and a process payment Lambda. I’d say the most interesting question is what you need to get done before you return a response to the user. Maybe you can process the order, respond to the user that it is done and handle the invoicing and payments on a later moment. Typically that would mean you put a message in a SQS queue or on an SNS topic.
It could be that you need your payment to be processed before you respond to the user, because they need to be informed about the status of the payment. You could then combine both actions in a single Lambda, because there is no way to spit the two tasks from one another. Keep in mind that often another option exist where you process the order first, put a message in a queue for the process payment (as it typically is a process that involves a third party) and the front end will poll for an update on the payment status. This way you can return a response quickly and still give an update on the payment as soon as possible.
The create invoice process is typically something you would never want to synchronously invoke during order confirmation. What if your invoicing application (intern or extern) is down? Theoretically you could still process orders as long as you create the invoice at some later moment in time. If you couple everything together you make order confirmation dependent on your invoice creation process, which I would regard as an unnecessary dependency.
I would really advice against step functions for this use-case. They can be utilized for long running processes that need to keep state and ‘wake up’ at specific moments, but for this specific flow I would say they do not help and are unnecessarily complex. If you have 3 things you need to do that you cannot separate from
one another, just run them in the same Lambda.
I am currently developing an API management platform where it is possible to move every endpoint action to a serverless function (lambda).
My question is: It is cheaper to use a single lambda function which then invokes the complete app and the app makes internally the routing or it is better to use the AWS routing and create a lambda for each endpoint, in my case this could be (100+) lambda instances.
From a technical perspective I think it is better to have multiple lambda functions since then we can also scale each function independently but I am not sure how it looks on the costs side. So please let me know if you have any experiences.
Look here:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/lambda-tools/pricing-calculator.html
The most important thing to keep in mind, is run short time functions at lambda, slow executions can increase your budget! But many lambda fast invokes no!
You need to know your executions time! To maintain a very large set of lambda functions i recommend to you:
https://www.serverless.com/
I've built a bit of a pipeline of AWS Lambda functions using the Serverless framework. There are currently five steps/functions, and I need them to run in order and each run exactly once. Roughly, the functions are:
Trigger function by an HTTP request, respond with an ID.
Access and API to get the URL of a resource to download.
Download that resource and upload a copy to S3.
Alter that resource and upload the altered copy to S3.
Submit the altered resource to a different API.
The specifics aren't important, but the question is: What's the best event/trigger to use to move along down this line of functions? The first one is triggered by an HTTP call, but the first one needs to trigger the second somehow, then the second triggers the third, and so on.
I wrote all the code using AWS SNS, but now that I've deployed it to staging I see that SNS often triggers more than once. I could add a bunch of code to detect this, but I'd rather not. And the problem is also compounding -- if the second function gets triggered twice, it sends two SNS notifications to trigger step three. If either of those notifications gets doubled... it's not unreasonable that the last function could be called ten times instead of once.
So what's my best option here? Trigger the chain through HTTP? Kinesis maybe? I have never worked with a trigger other than HTTP or SNS, so I'm not really sure what my options are, and which options are guaranteed to only trigger the function once.
AWS Step Functions seems pretty well targeted at this use-case of tying together separate AWS operations into a coherent workflow with well-defined error handling.
Not sure if the pricing will work for you (can be pricey for millions+ operations) but it may be worth looking at.
Also not sure about performance overhead or other limitations, so YMMV.
You can simply trigger the next lambda asynchronously in your lambda function after you complete the required processing in that step.
So, the first lambda is triggered by an HTTP call and in that lambda execution, after you finish processing this step, just launch the next lambda function asynchronously instead of sending the trigger through SNS or Kinesis. Repeat this process in each of your steps. This would guarantee single time execution of all the steps by lambda.
Eventful Lambda triggers (SNS, S3, CloudWatch, ...) generally guarantee at-least-once invocation, not exactly-once. As you noted you'd have to handle deduplication manually by, for example, keeping track of event IDs in DynamoDB (using strongly consistent reads!), or by implementing idempotent Lambdas, meaning functions that have no additional effects even when invoked several times with the same input. In your example step 4 is essentially idempotent providing that the function doesn't have any side effects apart from storing the altered copy, and that the new copy overwrites any previously stored copies with the same event ID.
One service that does guarantee exactly-once delivery out of the box is SQS FIFO. This service unfortunately cannot be used to trigger Lambdas directly so you'd have to set up a scheduled Lambda to poll the FIFO queue periodically (as per this answer). In your case you could handle step 5 with this arrangement, since I'm assuming you don't want to submit the same resource to the target API several times.
So in summary here's how I'd go about it:
Lambda A, invoked via HTTP, responds with ID and proceeds to asynchronously fetch resource from the API and store it to S3
Lambda B, invoked by S3 upload event, downloads the uploaded resource, alters it, stores the altered copy to S3 and finally pushes a message into the FIFO SQS queue using the altered resource's filename as the distinct deduplication ID
Lambda C, invoked by CloudWatch scheduler, polls the FIFO SQS queue and upon a new message fetches the specified altered resource from S3 and submits it to the other API
With this arrangement even if Lambda B is occasionally executed twice or more by the same S3 upload event there's no harm done since the FIFO SQS queue handles deduplication for you before the flow reaches Lambda C.
AWS Step function is meant for you: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/step-functions/latest/dg/welcome.html
You will execute the steps you want based on previous executions outputs.
Each task/step just need to output a json correctly in the wanted "state".
https://docs.aws.amazon.com/step-functions/latest/dg/concepts-states.html
Based on the state, your workflow will move on. You can create your workflow easily and trigger lambdas, or ECS tasks.
ECS tasks are your own "lambda" environment, running without the constraints of the AWS Lambda environment.
With ECS tasks you can run on Bare metal, on your own EC2 machine, or in ECS Docker containers on ECS and thus have unlimited resources extensible limits.
As compared to Lambda where the limits are pretty strict: 500Mb of disk, execution limited in time, etc.
I have an application where an initial lambda will spawn several asynchronous lambdas, and some of those lambdas may spawn their own asynchronous lambdas, and so on (although with a generation-counter to prevent runaways). The lambdas all currently write to a DynamoDB table. I'd like to know when the last one finishes, so as to kick off some different processes.
I can think of several ways generally:
writing specific fields to the DB, and each lambda checks if it's the last one running
SQS
SWF (Step Functions/state machines)
I'd like to know the simplest way to do this, and/or the "best" or canonical way, if there is one. Would also like to avoid SQS (although I'm going to experiment with SWF anyway, just because it sounds cool).
This is a good use case for AWS Step Functions.
The Parallel state is exactly what you need.
The Parallel state ("Type": "Parallel") can be used to create parallel branches of execution in your state machine.
Your scenario best fits with AWS Step Functions where you can define the Parallel state for Lambda steps and at the last execution to trigger the final step, which will kick of the different process. However this will simplify the state machine but will incur additional cost for individual states.
Another approach is to use DynamoDB Atomic Counters to keep track of each execution so that after the last execution, the Lambda function attached to the Stream, can identify and kick of the different process.