self.publish('foo.%s' % id, 'bar', options=PublishOptions(retain=True))
When using retained events, what's the memory consumption behaviour on the Crossbar router? Is the event stored forever, or is it purged after some time and the memory reclaimed?
I'm using wildcard topics, so there will be an ever growing backlog of retained events, unless old topics/retained events are purged at some point.
For full-on event history, you can configure the memory usage (https://crossbar.io/docs/Event-History/) but for retained events only the latest event for a topic is retained.
By "wildcard topics" you mean that you're publishing to foo.<something> and so there'll be an unbounded number of topics you're publishing to?
I can see two solutions (both require changes to Crossbar): add a Meta API to expire/remove particular retained events, or add some configuration option(s) to crossbar to limit retention somehow (maybe by time, maybe by number of events)?
Another solution if it works for your use-case would be to make the "topic" a fixed URI and add the ever-changing part ("id") as one of the arguments; then you could either use "retain" for just the latest one or use the "event history" feature if you want to keep a certain number around.
Related
We use Kafka topics as both events and a repository. Using the kafka-streams API we define a simple K-Table that represents all the events in the topic.
In our use case we publish events to the topic and subsequently reference the K-Table as the backing repository. The main issue is that the published events are not immediately visible on the K-Table.
We tried transactions and exactly once semantics as described here (https://kafka.apache.org/26/documentation/streams/core-concepts#streams_processing_guarantee) but there is always a delay we cannot control.
Publish Event
Undetermined amount of time
Published Event is visible in the K-Table
Is there a way to eliminate the delay or otherwise know that a specific event has been consumed by the K-Table.
NOTE: We tried both partition and global tables with similar results.
Thanks
Because Kafka is an asynchronous system the observed delay is expected and you cannot do anything to avoid it.
However, if you publish a message to a topic, the KafkaProducer allows you to pass in a Callback to the send() method and the callback will be executed after the message was written to the topic providing the record's metadata like topic, partition, and offset.
After Kafka Streams processed messages, it will eventually commit the offsets (you can configure the commit interval, too). Thus, you can know if the message is in the KTable after the offset was committed. By default, committing happens every 30 seconds only and it's not recommended to use a very short commit interval because it implies large overhead. Thus, I am not sure if this would help for your case, as it seem you want a more timely "response".
As an alternative, you can also disable caching on the KTable and use a toStream().process() step -- after each update to the KTable, the changelog stream provided by toStream() will contain the record and you can access the record metadata (including its offset) in the Processor via the given ProcessorContext object. Thus should also allow you to figure out, when the record is available in the KTable.
I am in the process of scaling out an application horizontally, and have realised read model updates (external projection via event handler) will need to be handled on a competing consumer basis.
I initially assumed that I would need to ensure ordering, but this requirement is message dependent. In the case of shopping cart checkouts where i want to know totals, i can add totals regardless of the order - get the message, update the SQL database, and ACK the message.
I am now racking my brains to even think of a scenario/messages that would be anything but, however i know this is not the case. Some extra clarity and examples would be immensely useful.
My questions i need help with please are:
What type of messages would the ordering need to be important, and
how would this be resolved using the messages as-is?
How would we know which event to resubscribe from when the processes
join/leave I can see possible timing issues that could cause a
subscription to be requested on a message that had just been
processed by another process?
I see there is a Pinned consumer strategy for best efforts affinity of stream to subscriber, however this is not guaranteed. I could solve this making a specific stream single threaded processing only those messages in order - is it possible for a process to have multiple subscriptions to different streams?
To use your example of a shopping cart, ordering would be potentially important for the following events:
Add item
Update item count
Remove item
You might have sequences like A: 'Add item, remove item' or B: 'Add item, Update item count (to 2), Update item count (to 3)'. For A, if you process the remove before the add, obviously you're in trouble. For B, if you process two update item counts out of order, you'll end up with the wrong final count.
This is normally scaled out by using some kind of sharding scheme, where a subset of all aggregates are allocated to each shard. For Event Store, I believe this can be done by creating a user-defined projection using partitionBy to partition the stream into multiple streams (aka 'shards'). Then you need to allocate partitions/shards to processing nodes in a some way. Some technologies are built around this approach to horizontal scaling (Kafka and Kinesis spring to mind).
Suppose we have 3 different services producing events, each of them publishing to its own event store.
Each of these services consumes other producers services events.
This because each service has to process another service's events AND to create its own projection. Each of the service runs on multiple instances.
The most straight forward way to do it (for me) was to put "something" in front of each ES which is picking events and publishing (pub/sub) them in queues of every other service.
This is perfect because every service can subscribe to each topics it likes, while the event publisher is doing the job and if a service is unavailable events are still delivered. This seems to me to guarantee high scalability and availability.
My problem is the queue. I can't get an easily scalable queue that guarantees ordering of the messages. It actually guarantees "slightly out of order" with at-least once delivery: to be clear, it's AWS SQS.
So, the ordering problems are:
No order guaranteed across events from the same event stream.
No order guaranteed across events from the same ES.
No order guaranteed across events from different ES (different services).
I though I could solve the first two problems just by keeping track of the "sequence number" of the events coming from the same ES.
This would be done by tracking the last sequence number of each topic from which we are consuming events
This should be easy for reacting to events and also building our projection.
Then, when I pop an event from the queue, if the eventSequenceNumber > previousAppliedEventSequenceNumber + 1 i renqueue it (or make it invisible for a certain time).
But it turns out that using this solution, it will destroy performances when events are produced at high rates (I can use a visibility timeout or other stuff, the result should be the same).
This because when I'm expecting event 10 and I ignore event 11 for a moment, I should ignore also all events (from ES) with sequence numbers coming after that event 11, until event 11 shows up again and it's effectively processed.
Other difficulties were:
where to keep track of the event's sequence number for build the projection.
how to keep track of the event's sequence number for build the projection so that when appling it, I have a consistent lastSequenceNumber.
What I'm missing?
P.S.: for the third problem think at the following scenario. We have a UserService and a CartService. The CartService has a projection where for each user keeps track of the products in the cart. Each cart's projection must have also user's name and other info's that are coming from the UserCreated event published from the UserService. If UserCreated comes after ProductAddedToCart the normal flow requires to throw an exception because the user doesn't exist yet.
What I'm missing?
You are missing flow -- consumers pull messages from sources, rather than having sources push the messages to the consumers.
When I wake up, I check my bookmark to find out which of your messages I read last, and then ask you if there have been any since. If there have, I retrieve them from you in order (think "document message"), also writing down the new bookmarks. Then I go back to sleep.
The primary purpose of push notifications is to interrupt the sleep period (thereby reducing latency).
With SQS acting as a queue, the idea is that you read all of the enqueued messages at once. If there are no gaps, then you can order the collection then start processing them and acking them. If there are gaps, you either wait (leaving the messages in the queue) or you go to the event store to fetch copies of the missing messages.
There's no magic -- if the message pipeline is promising "at least once" delivery, then the consumers must take steps to recognize duplicate messages as they arrive.
If UserCreated comes after ProductAddedToCart the normal flow requires to throw an exception because the user doesn't exist yet.
Review Race Conditions Don't Exist, by Udi Dahan: "A microsecond difference in timing shouldn’t make a difference to core business behaviors."
The basic issue is assuming we can get messages IN ORDER...
This is a fallacy in distributed computing...
I suggest you design for no message ordering in your system.
As for your issues, try and use UTC time in the message body/header created by the originator and try and work around this data point. Sequence numbers are going to fail unless you have a central deterministic sequence creator (which will be a non-scalable, single point of failure).
Using Sagas/State machine is a path that can help to make sense of (business) events ordering.
we are currently working in a message driven Microservice environment and some of our messages/events are event sourced (using Apache Kafka). Now we are struggling with implementing more complex business requirements, were we have to take multiple events into account to create new events and side effects.
In the current situation we are working with devices that can produce errors and we already process them and have a single topic which contains ERROR_OCCURRED and ERROR_RESOLVED events (so they are in order). We also make sure, that all messages regarding a specific device always go onto the same partition. And both messages share an ID that identifies that specific error incident. We already have a projection that consumes those events and provides an API for our customers, s.t. they can see all occurred errors and their current state.
Now we have to deal with the following requirement:
Reporting Errors
We need a push system that reports errors of devices to our external partners, but only after 15 minutes and if they have not been resolved in that timeframe. Our first approach was to consume all ERROR_RESOLVED events, store the IDs and have another consumer that is handling the ERROR_OCCURRED events in a delayed fashion (e.g. by only consuming the next ERROR_OCCURRED event on the topic if its timestamp is at least 15 minutes old). We would then be able to know if that particular error has already been resolved and does not need to be reported (since they share a common ID with the corresponding ERROR_RESOLVED event). Otherwise we send an HTTP request to our external partner and create an ERROR_REPORTED event on a new topic. Is there any better approach for delayed and conditional message processing?
We also have to take the following special use cases into account:
Service restarts: currently we are planning to keep the list of resolved errors in memory, so if a service restarts, that list has to be created from scratch. We could just replay the ERROR_RESOLVED messages, but that may take some time and in that time no ERROR_OCCURRED events should be processed because that may result in reporting errors that have been resolved in less then 15 minutes, but we are just not aware of it. Are there any good practices regarding replay vs. "normal" processing?
Scaling: we may increase or decrease the number of instances of our service at any time, so the partition assignment may change during runtime. That should not be a problem if we create a consumer group for each service instance when consuming the ERROR_RESOLVED events, s.t. every instance knows all resolved errors while still only handling the ERROR_OCCURRED events of its assigned partitions (in another consumer group which is shared by all instances). Is there a better approach for handling partition reassignment and internal state?
Thanks in advance!
For side effects, I would record all "side" actions in the event store. In your particular example, when it is time to send a notification, I would call SEND_NOTIFICATION command that emit NOTIFICATION_SENT event. These events would be processed by some worker process that does actual HTTP request.
Actually I would elaborate this even furter, since notifications could fail, so I would have, say, two events NOTIFICATION_REQUIRED, and NORIFICATION_SENT, so we can retry failed notifications.
And finally your logic would be "if error was not resolved in 15 minutes and notification was not sent - send a notification (or just discard if it missed its timeframe)"
Since a couple of days I've been trying to figure it out how to inform to the rest of the microservices that a new entity was created in a microservice A that store that entity in a MongoDB.
I want to:
Have low coupling between the microservices
Avoid distributed transactions between microservices like Two Phase Commit (2PC)
At first a message broker like RabbitMQ seems to be a good tool for the job but then I see the problem of commit the new document in MongoDB and publish the message in the broker not being atomic.
Why event sourcing? by eventuate.io:
One way of solving this issue implies make the schema of the documents a bit dirtier by adding a mark that says if the document have been published in the broker and having a scheduled background process that search unpublished documents in MongoDB and publishes those to the broker using confirmations, when the confirmation arrives the document will be marked as published (using at-least-once and idempotency semantics). This solutions is proposed in this and this answers.
Reading an Introduction to Microservices by Chris Richardson I ended up in this great presentation of Developing functional domain models with event sourcing where one of the slides asked:
How to atomically update the database and publish events and publish events without 2PC? (dual write problem).
The answer is simple (on the next slide)
Update the database and publish events
This is a different approach to this one that is based on CQRS a la Greg Young.
The domain repository is responsible for publishing the events, this
would normally be inside a single transaction together with storing
the events in the event store.
I think that delegate the responsabilities of storing and publishing the events to the event store is a good thing because avoids the need of 2PC or a background process.
However, in a certain way it's true that:
If you rely on the event store to publish the events you'd have a
tight coupling to the storage mechanism.
But we could say the same if we adopt a message broker for intecommunicate the microservices.
The thing that worries me more is that the Event Store seems to become a Single Point of Failure.
If we look this example from eventuate.io
we can see that if the event store is down, we can't create accounts or money transfers, losing one of the advantages of microservices. (although the system will continue responding querys).
So, it's correct to affirmate that the Event Store as used in the eventuate example is a Single Point of Failure?
What you are facing is an instance of the Two General's Problem. Basically, you want to have two entities on a network agreeing on something but the network is not fail safe. Leslie Lamport proved that this is impossible.
So no matter how much you add new entities to your network, the message queue being one, you will never have 100% certainty that agreement will be reached. In fact, the opposite takes place: the more entities you add to your distributed system, the less you can be certain that an agreement will eventually be reached.
A practical answer to your case is that 2PC is not that bad if you consider adding even more complexity and single points of failures. If you absolutely do not want a single point of failure and wants to assume that the network is reliable (in other words, that the network itself cannot be a single point of failure), you can try a P2P algorithm such as DHT, but for two peers I bet it reduces to simple 2PC.
We handle this with the Outbox approach in NServiceBus:
http://docs.particular.net/nservicebus/outbox/
This approach requires that the initial trigger for the whole operation came in as a message on the queue but works very well.
You could also create a flag for each entry inside of the event store which tells if this event was already published. Another process could poll the event store for those unpublished events and put them into a message queue or topic. The disadvantage of this approach is that consumers of this queue or topic must be designed to de-duplicate incoming messages because this pattern does only guarantee at-least-once delivery. Another disadvantage could be latency because of the polling frequency. But since we have already entered the eventually consistent area here this might not be such a big concern.
How about if we have two event stores, and whenever a Domain Event is created, it is queued onto both of them. And the event handler on the query side, handles events popped from both the event stores.
Ofcourse every event should be idempotent.
But wouldn’t this solve our problem of the event store being a single point of entry?
Not particularly a mongodb solution but have you considered leveraging the Streams feature introduced in Redis 5 to implement a reliable event store. Take a look this intro here
I find that it has rich set of features like message tailing, message acknowledgement as well as the ability to extract unacknowledged messages easily. This surely helps to implement at least once messaging guarantees. It also support load balancing of messages using "consumer group" concept which can help with scaling the processing part.
Regarding your concern about being the single point of failure, as per the documentation, streams and consumer information can be replicated across nodes and persisted to disk (using regular Redis mechanisms I believe). This helps address the single point of failure issue. I'm currently considering using this for one of my microservices projects.