I try to find some fast algorithm of interprocess communication.
One of I need is an ability to send one command to multiple application instances at the same time. I had tried to find out for a day if I am able to start many instances of the same app (local-rpc-server-app) and call RPC from one client. I use ncalrpc protocol for this purpose.
I just want to start several instances of server and one instance if client, and then call the same RPC func one time on a client to evaluate this RPC func on every running server.
Yes, you can either use multiple client threads (each making a separate server call) or modify the .acf and mark the call with the [async] attribute. If you go the latter route you can then make multiple calls on a single client thread. Note that asynchronous RPC is a fair bit more complicated than synchronous RPC due to needing to deal with call completions.
Making calls to multiple server instances (even local instances) is also made more complicated by the fact that you will have to somehow discover those endpoints, and the RPC namespace functions (RpcNs*) are no longer available as of Windows Vista.
Related
Problem:
Suppose there are two services A and B. Service A makes an API call to service B.
After a while service A falls down or to be lost due to network errors.
How another services will guess that an outbound call from service A is lost / never happen? I need some another concurrent app that will automatically react (run emergency code) if service A outbound CALL is lost.
What are cutting-edge solutions exist?
My thoughts, for example:
service A registers a call event in some middleware (event info, "running" status, timestamp, etc).
If this call is not completed after N seconds, some "call timeout" event in the middleware automatically starts the emergency code.
If the call is completed at the proper time service A marks the call status as "completed" in the same middleware and the emergency code will not be run.
P.S. I'm on Java stack.
Thanks!
I recommend to look into patterns such as Retry, Timeout, Circuit Breaker, Fallback and Healthcheck. Or you can also look into the Bulkhead pattern if concurrent calls and fault isolation are your concern.
There are many resources where these well-known patterns are explained, for instance:
https://www.infoworld.com/article/3310946/how-to-build-resilient-microservices.html
https://blog.codecentric.de/en/2019/06/resilience-design-patterns-retry-fallback-timeout-circuit-breaker/
I don't know which technology stack you are on but usually there is already some functionality for these concerns provided already that you can incorporate into your solution. There are libraries that already take care of this resilience functionality and you can, for instance, set it up so that your custom code is executed when some events such as failed retries, timeouts, activated circuit breakers, etc. occur.
E.g. for the Java stack Hystrix is widely used, for .Net you can look into Polly .Net to make use of retry, timeout, circuit breaker, bulkhead or fallback functionality.
Concerning health checks you can look into Actuator for Java and .Net core already provides a health check middleware that more or less provides that functionality out-of-the box.
But before using any libraries I suggest to first get familiar with the purpose and concepts of the listed patterns to choose and integrate those that best fit your use cases and major concerns.
Update
We have to differentiate between two well-known problems here:
1.) How can service A robustly handle temporary outages of service B (or the network connection between service A and B which comes down to the same problem)?
To address the related problems the above mentioned patterns will help.
2.) How to make sure that the request that should be sent to service B will not get lost if service A itself goes down?
To address this kind of problem there are different options at hand.
2a.) The component that performed the request to service A (which than triggers service B) also applies the resilience patterns mentioned and will retry its request until service A successfully answers that it has performed its tasks (which also includes the successful request to service B).
There can also be several instances of each service and some kind of load balancer in front of these instances which will distribute and direct the requests to an available instance (based on regular performed healthchecks) of the specific service. Or you can use a service registry (see https://microservices.io/patterns/service-registry.html).
You can of course chain several API calls after another but this can lead to cascading failures. So I would rather go with an asynchronous communication approach as described in the next option.
2b.) Let's consider that it is of utmost importance that some instance of service A will reliably perform the request to service B.
You can use message queues in this case as follows:
Let's say you have a queue where jobs to be performed by service A are collected.
Then you have several instances of service A running (see horizontal scaling) where each instance will consume the same queue.
You will use message locking features by the message queue service which makes sure that as soon one instance of service A reads a message from the queue the other instances won't see it. If service A was able to complete it's job (i.e. call service B, save some state in service A's persistence and whatever other tasks you need to be included for a succesfull procesing) it will delete the message from the queue afterwards so no other instance of service A will also process the same message.
If service A goes down during the processing the queue service will automatically unlock the message for you and another instance A (or the same instance after it has restarted) of service A will try to read the message (i.e. the job) from the queue and try to perform all the tasks (call service B, etc.)
You can combine several queues e.g. also to send a message to service B asynchronously instead of directly performing some kind of API call to it.
The catch is, that the queue service is some highly available and redundant service which will already make sure that no message is getting lost once published to a queue.
Of course you also could handle jobs to be performed in your own database of service A but consider that when service A receives a request there is always a chance that it goes down before it can save that status of the job to it's persistent storage for later processing. Queue services already address that problem for you if chosen thoughtfully and used correctly.
For instance, if look into Kafka as messaging service you can look into this stack overflow answer which relates to the problem solution when using this specific technology: https://stackoverflow.com/a/44589842/7730554
There is many way to solve your problem.
I guess you are talk about 2 topics Design Pattern in Microservices and Cicruit Breaker
https://dzone.com/articles/design-patterns-for-microservices
To solve your problem, Normally I put a message queue between services and use Service Discovery to detect which service is live and If your service die or orverload then use Cicruit Breaker methods
In most of the web the applications built in the vertx, I have seen that in a single microservice people create two verticles.
One is rest verticle to handle HTTP requests.
Another is to dao verticle to communicate to the database.
Whenever there is any api request, the HTTP verticle communicates with dao verticle via event bus.
But given that vertex is single-threaded, what is the benefit of creating two different verticles here. There would be unnecessary overhead of communication over the event bus, whereas I can create only one verticle which handles both rest and i/o.
I can understand the case of having a separate worker verticle in case of blocking calls. But in the case of non-blocking, i/o calls what is the use case of it?
Vert.x is not single-threaded. It uses a multi-reactor pattern:
In a standard reactor implementation there is a single event loop
thread which runs around in a loop delivering all events to all
handlers as they arrive.
The trouble with a single thread is it can only run on a single core
at any one time, so if you want your single threaded reactor
application (e.g. your Node.js application) to scale over your
multi-core server you have to start up and manage many different
processes.
Vert.x works differently here. Instead of a single event loop, each
Vertx instance maintains several event loops. By default we choose the
number based on the number of available cores on the machine, but this
can be overridden.
This means a single Vertx process can scale across your server, unlike
Node.js.
So by running multiple Verticles, you can have your services spread across multiple threads/CPU cores.
I am trying to understand how to best implement the MDP example in c# to be used in a windows service in a multiple client - single server environment.
I have read the docs but I am still unclear on the following:
Should all Worker instances be created on startup and left to run?
Should the Workers all be different types of services or just different instances of the same service?
Can I have one windows service when contains the Broker and Workers or is it best to split them out into their own services?
The example code I am using is the MajorDomo Pattern taken from here https://github.com/NetMQ/Samples
Yes, all workers in a MDP environment should be created independently of the requests, since the broker should not know how to create them
Each worker handles a given "service" (contract). Obviously each contract should have at least one worker.
If you need parallelized handling of requests, and a given worker can only do one at a time, having extra workers for that service could make sense. Generally you would do this if multiple machines were involved however (horizontal scaling)
You can have the broker and workers in the same process. HOWEVER, if you want to update only a worker, taking down the broker at the same time can be annoying for the clients. I would recommend letting the broker be its own process, with the workers in one or more other processes.
I am running an Apache server that receives HTTP requests and connects to a daemon script over ZeroMQ. The script implements the Multithreaded Server pattern (http://zguide.zeromq.org/page:all#header-73), it successfully receives the request and dispatches it to one of its worker threads, performs the action, responds back to the server, and the server responds back to the client. Everything is done synchronously as the client needs to receive a success or failure response to its request.
As the number of users is growing into a few thousands, I am looking into potentially improving this. The first thing I looked at is the different patterns of ZeroMQ, and whether what I am using is optimal for my scenario. I've read the guide but I find it challenging understanding all the details and differences across patterns. I was looking for example at the Load Balancing Message Broker pattern (http://zguide.zeromq.org/page:all#header-73). It seems quite a bit more complicated to implement than what I am currently using, and if I understand things correctly, its advantages are:
Actual load balancing vs the round-robin task distribution that I currently have
Asynchronous requests/replies
Is that everything? Am I missing something? Given the description of my problem, and the synchronous requirement of it, what would you say is the best pattern to use? Lastly, how would the answer change, if I want to make my setup distributed (i.e. having the Apache server load balance the requests across different machines). I was thinking of doing that by simply creating yet another layer, based on the Multithreaded Server pattern, and have that layer bridge the communication between the web server and my workers.
Some thoughts about the subject...
Keep it simple
I would try to keep things simple and "plain" ZeroMQ as long as possible. To increase performance, I would simply to change your backend script to send request out from dealer socket and move the request handling code to own program. Then you could just run multiple worker servers in different machines to get more requests handled.
I assume this was the approach you took:
I was thinking of doing that by simply creating yet another layer, based on the Multithreaded Server pattern, and have that layer bridge the communication between the web server and my workers.
Only problem here is that there is no request retry in the backend. If worker fails to handle given task it is forever lost. However one could write worker servers so that they handle all the request they got before shutting down. With this kind of setup it is possible to update backend workers without clients to notice any shortages. This will not save requests that get lost if the server crashes.
I have the feeling that in common scenarios this kind of approach would be more than enough.
Mongrel2
Mongrel2 seems to handle quite many things you have already implemented. It might be worth while to check it out. It probably does not completely solve your problems, but it provides tested infrastructure to distribute the workload. This could be used to deliver the request to be handled to multithreaded servers running on different machines.
Broker
One solution to increase the robustness of the setup is a broker. In this scenario brokers main role would be to provide robustness by implementing queue for the requests. I understood that all the requests the worker handle are basically the same type. If requests would have different types then broker could also do lookups to find correct server for the requests.
Using the queue provides a way to ensure that every request is being handled by some broker even if worker servers crashed. This does not come without price. The broker is by itself a single point of failure. If it crashes or is restarted all messages could be lost.
These problems can be avoided, but it requires quite much work: the requests could be persisted to the disk, servers could be clustered. Need has to be weighted against the payoffs. Does one want to use time to write a message broker or the actual system?
If message broker seems a good idea the time which is required to implement one can be reduced by using already implemented product (like RabbitMQ). Negative side effect is that there could be a lot of unwanted features and adding new things is not so straight forward as to self made broker.
Writing own broker could covert toward inventing the wheel again. Many brokers provide similar things: security, logging, management interface and so on. It seems likely that these are eventually needed in home made solution also. But if not then single home made broker which does single thing and does it well can be good choice.
Even if broker product is chosen I think it is a good idea to hide the broker behind ZeroMQ proxy, a dedicated code that sends/receives messages from the broker. Then no other part of the system has to know anything about the broker and it can be easily replaced.
Using broker is somewhat developer time heavy. You either need time to implement the broker or time to get use to some product. I would avoid this route until it is clearly needed.
Some links
Comparison between broker and brokerless
RabbitMQ
Mongrel2
After creating multiple instances of a named pipe (using CreateNamedPipe()), I use CreateFile() to form a pipe client.
When the client writes a message to the pipe, only one server instance gets it.
Is there a way for the client to write a message to all instances?
When a client connects to an instance of a named pipe, the manner in which the operating system chooses which server instance to make the connection to is undocumented, as far as I know. However, empirically it appears to be done on a round robin basis.
If you are prepared to rely on undocumented behaviour which may change with service packs and QFE patches, your client can keep closing its pipe handle and calling CreateFile again to get a new one - each time it will attach to a new server instance of the pipe. However, there is a problem with this in that the client would not know when to stop. I suppose you could invent some mechanism involving a response from the server to break the loop but it is far from satisfactory. This isn't what named pipes were designed for.
The real purpose of multiple server instances of a pipe is to enable pipe servers to handle multiple clients concurrently. Usually, the same server process manages all the instances.
You really want to turn things around: what you think of as your client should be the server, and should create and manage the pipe. Processes which want notification would then connect as clients of the named pipe. This is a pattern which can be implemented quite easily using WCF, with a duplex contract and the NetNamedPipeBinding, if that's an option.
No, a pipe has two ends. Loop through the pipes. A mailslot supports broadcasts but delivery isn't guarantee.