I have a persistent actor which receives many messages. Fist message is CREATE (case class) and next messages are UPDATEs (case classes). So if it receives CREATE then it should not go into persistence to run recovery because the storage is empty for this actor. It's performance wasting from my perspective.
Is there any possibility to do not call recovery for particular input message (the first one which is CREATE), please?
A persistent actor will always have to hit the database, because there is no other way to know whether it having existed before - it could have been created in a previous instance of the application that was stopped or it could have been created on a different node in a cluster.
In general a good pattern for performance is to keep the actor in memory after it has been hit the first time, as that will allow as fast responses as possible. The most common way to do this is using Cluster Sharding (which you can read more about in the docs here: https://doc.akka.io/docs/akka/current/cluster-sharding.html?language=scala#cluster-sharding
I have never heard of anyone seeing the hit for an empty persistent actor as a performance problem and I'm not sure it is possible to solve that in a general way, so if you have such a problem and somehow can know the actor was never created before you can not do that with Akka Persistence but would have to build a special solution for that yourself.
Related
I have been starting to make greater use of the message data feature of masstransit and am getting to the point needing to manage the message data in the store - i.e. remove old data.
The obvious choice is to have some outside process tidy up data, but clearly a scheduled (or not) clean up could remove data still in use or referenced by error or dead letter queues.
Ideally I would like to limit stored message data retention to messages only in error or dead letter queues, and automatically remove data for messages that have been successfully processed.
What would be the best approach to achieve this with MassTransit? Perhaps with a MiddleWare approach or similar, and if that is the case what is the correct approach?
Manual cleanup is recommended, using whatever makes sense for the repository in use. Because messages may still be in queues, or in error/dead-letter queues as you pointed out, it is really up to development/operations team to know when the right time is to remove older message data.
I'd suggest monitoring and managing the error/dead-letter queues more aggressively, keeping them empty. And then, just figure a good timeframe to delete old message data - one week, ten days, whatever - and deal with it that way.
I have had a backlog item to come up with a way to automatically manage message data, but since message data can be forwarded (using the same stored data) either via publish or send, there is no good way to track references.
I have a spring boot application (let's say it's called app-1) that is connected to a kafka cluster and that consumes from a specific topic, let's say the topic is called "foo". Topic foo always receives a message when another application (let's say it's called app-2) has imported a new foo-item into the database.
The topic is primarily meant to be used in a third application (let's say it's called app-3) which sends out some e-Mail notification to people that may be interested in this new foo-item. App-3 is clustered, meaning there are multiple instances of it running at the same time. Kafka automatically balances the foo-topic messages between all these instances because they use the same consumer-id. This is good and in the case of app-3 it is actually desired.
In the case of app-2, however, the messages from the foo-topic are used for cache eviction. The logic is, basically, that if there is a new foo-item then the currently existing caches should probably be cleared, because their content depends on the foo-items. The issue is that app-2 is also clustered, which means that by default kafka-logic, every instance will only receive some of the messages sent to the foo-topic. This does not work correctly for this specific app tho, because whenever there is a new foo-item, all of the instances need to know about it because all of them need their clear their local caches.
From what I understand I have these two options if I want to keep the current logic:
Introduce a distributed cache for all instances of app-2 so that they all share the same cache. Then it does not matter if only one instance receives a foo-item, because the cache eviction will also affect the cache of the other instances; even though they never learned about the foo-item. I would like to avoid this solution, as a distributed cache would add a noticeable amount of complexity and also overhead.
Somehow manage to use a different consumer-id for each instance of app-2. Then they would be considered different consumers by kafka and they all would get each foo-topic message. However, I don't even know how to programmatically do this. The code of the application is not aware of replicated instances, there is no way to access any information about what node it is. If I use a randomly generated string on startup, then each time such instance restarts it would be considered a new consumer and would have to re-process all previous messages. That would be incorrect behavior as well.
Here is my bottom line question: Is it possible to make all instances of app-2 receive all messages from the foo-topic without completely breaking the way kafka is supposed to work? I know that it is probably very unconventional to use kafka-messages for cache eviction and I am entirely able to find an alternative mechanism for the cache eviction logic that does not depend on kafka-topic messages. However, the applications are for demonstration purposes and I thought it would be cool if more than one app read from this topic. But if I end up having to hack a dirty workaround to make it work then it's also bad for demonstration purposes and I would rather implement an alternative way of cache eviction.
As you mentioned, you could use different consumer ids with random strings.
If notifications are being read from the beginning, then you probably have ConsumerConfig.AUTO_OFFSET_RESET_CONFIG set to "earliest" somewhere in your consumer configuration. If this is the case, removing it will probably solve your problems - when the app will start it will only receive notification sent after the consumer started listening.
I am new to the topic. Having read a handful of articles on it, and asked a couple of persons, I still do not understand what you people do in regard to one problem.
There are UI clients making requests to several backend instances (for now it's irrelevant whether sessions are sticky or not), and those instances are connected to some highly available DB cluster (may it be Cassandra or something else of even Elasticsearch). Say the backend instance is not specifically tied to one or cluster's machines, and instead its every request to DB may be served by a different machine.
One client creates some record, it's synchronously of asynchronously stored to one of cluster's machines then eventually gets replicated to the rest of DB machines. Then another client requests the list or records, the request ends up served by a distant machine not yet received the replicated changes, and so the client does not see the record. Well, that's bad but not yet ugly.
Consider however that the second client hits the machine which has the record, displays it in a list, then refreshes the list and this time hits the distant machine and again does not see the record. That's very weird behavior to observe, isn't it? It might even get worse: the client successfully requests the record, starts some editing on it, then tries to store the updates to DB and this time hits the distant machine which says "I know nothing about this record you are trying to update". That's an error which the user will see while doing something completely legitimate.
So what's the common practice to guard against this?
So far, I only see three solutions.
1) Not actually a solution but rather a policy: ignore the problem and instead speed up the cluster hard enough to guarantee that 99.999% of changes will be replicated on the whole cluster in, say, 0.5 secord (it's hard to imagine some user will try to make several consecutive requests to one record in that time; he can of course issue several reading requests, but in that case he'll probably not notice inconsistency between results). And even if sometimes something goes wrong and the user faces the problem, well, we just embrace that. If the loser gets unhappy and writes a complaint to us (which will happen maybe once a week or once an hour), we just apologize and go on.
2) Introduce an affinity between user's session and a specific DB machine. This helps, but needs explicit support from the DB, and also hurts load-balancing, and invites complications when the DB machine goes down and the session needs to be re-bound to another machine (however with proper support from DB I think that's possible; say Elasticsearch can accept routing key, and I believe if the target shard goes down it will just switch the affinity link to another shard - though I am not entirely sure; but even if re-binding happens, the other machine may contain older data :) ).
3) Rely on monotonic consistency, i.e. some method to be sure that the next request from a client will get results no older than the previous one. But, as I understand it, this approach also requires explicit support from DB, like being able so pass some "global version timestamp" to a cluster's balancer, which it will compare with it's latest data on all machines' timestamps to determine which machines can serve the request.
Are there other good options? Or are those three considered good enough to use?
P.S. My specific problem right now is with Elasticsearch; AFAIK there is no support for monotonic reads there, though looks like option #2 may be available.
Apache Ignite has primary partition for a key and backup partitions. Unless you have readFromBackup option set, you will always be reading from primary partition whose contents is expected to be reliable.
If a node goes away, a transaction (or operation) should be either propagated by remaining nodes or rolled back.
Note that Apache Ignite doesn't do Eventual Consistency but instead Strong Consistency. It means that you can observe delays during node loss, but will not observe inconsistent data.
In Cassandra if using at least quorum consistency for both reads and writes you will get monotonic reads. This was not the case pre 1.0 but thats a long time ago. There are some gotchas if using server timestamps but thats not by default so likely wont be an issue if using C* 2.1+.
What can get funny is since C* uses timestamps is things that occur at "same time". Since Cassandra is Last Write Wins the times and clock drift do matter. But concurrent updates to records will always have race conditions so if you require strong read before write guarantees you can use light weight transactions (essentially CAS operations using paxos) to ensure no one else updates between your read to update, these are slow though so I would avoid it unless critical.
In a true distributed system, it does not matter where your record is stored in remote cluster as long as your clients are connected to that remote cluster. In Hazelcast, a record is always stored in a partition and one partition is owned by one of the servers in the cluster. There could be X number of partitions in the cluster (by default 271) and all those partitions are equally distributed across the cluster. So a 3 members cluster will have a partition distribution like 91-90-90.
Now when a client sends a record to store in Hazelcast cluster, it already knows which partition does the record belong to by using consistent hashing algorithm. And with that, it also knows which server is the owner of that partition. Hence, the client sends its operation directly to that server. This approach applies on all client operations - put or get. So in your case, you may have several UI clients connected to the cluster but your record for a particular user is stored on one server in the cluster and all your UI clients will be approaching that server for their operations related to that record.
As for consistency, Hazelcast by default is strongly consistent distributed cache, which implies that all your updates to a particular record happen synchronously, in the same thread and the application waits until it has received acknowledgement from the owner server (and the backup server if backups are enabled) in the cluster.
When you connect a DB layer (this could be one or many different types of DBs running in parallel) to the cluster then Hazelcast cluster returns data even if its not currently present in the cluster by reading it from DB. So you never get a null value. On updating, you configure the cluster to send the updates downstream synchronously or asynchronously.
Ah-ha, after some even more thorough study of ES discussions I found this: https://www.elastic.co/guide/en/elasticsearch/reference/current/search-request-preference.html
Note how they specifically highlight the "custom value" case, recommending to use it exactly to solve my problem.
So, given that's their official recommendation, we can summarise it like this.
To fight volatile reads, we are supposed to use "preference",
with "custom" or some other approach.
To also get "read your
writes" consistency, we can have all clients use
"preference=_primary", because primary shard is first to get all
writes. This however will probably have worse performance than
"custom" mode due to no distribution. And that's quite similar to what other people here said about Ignite and Hazelcast.
Right?
Of course that's a solution specifically for ES. Reverting to my initial question which is a bit more generic, turns out that options #2 and #3 are really considered good enough for many distributed systems, with #3 being possible to achieve with #2 (even without immediate support for #3 by DB).
I'll illustrate my question with Twitter. For example, Twitter has microservice-based architecture which means that different processes are in different servers and have different databases.
A new tweet appears, server A stored in its own database some data, generated new events and fired them. Server B and C didn't get these events at this point and didn't store anything in their databases nor processed anything.
The user that created the tweet wants to edit that tweet. To achieve that, all three services A, B, C should have processed all events and stored to db all required data, but service B and C aren't consistent yet. That means that we are not able to provide edit functionality at the moment.
As I can see, a possible workaround could be in switching to immediate consistency, but that will take away all microservice-based architecture benefits and probably could cause problems with tight coupling.
Another workaround is to restrict user's actions for some time till data aren't consistent across all necessary services. Probably a solution, depends on customer and his business requirements.
And another workaround is to add additional logic or probably service D that will store edits as user's actions and apply them to data only when they will be consistent. Drawback is very increased complexity of the system.
And there are two-phase commits, but that's 1) not really reliable 2) slow.
I think slowness is a huge drawback in case of such loads as Twitter has. But probably it could be solved, whereas lack of reliability cannot, again, without increased complexity of a solution.
So, the questions are:
Are there any nice solutions to the illustrated situation or only things that I mentioned as workarounds? Maybe some programming platforms or databases?
Do I misunderstood something and some of workarounds aren't correct?
Is there any other approach except Eventual Consistency that will guarantee that all data will be stored and all necessary actions will be executed by other services?
Why Eventual Consistency has been picked for this use case? As I can see, right now it is the only way to guarantee that some data will be stored or some action will be performed if we are talking about event-driven approach when some of services will start their work when some event is fired, and following my example, that event would be “tweet is created”. So, in case if services B and C go down, I need to be able to perform action successfully when they will be up again.
Things I would like to achieve are: reliability, ability to bear high loads, adequate complexity of solution. Any links on any related subjects will be very much appreciated.
If there are natural limitations of this approach and what I want cannot be achieved using this paradigm, it is okay too. I just need to know that this problem really isn't solved yet.
It is all about tradeoffs. With eventual consistency in your example it may mean that the user cannot edit for maybe a few seconds since most of the eventual consistent technologies would not take too long to replicate the data across nodes. So in this use case it is absolutely acceptable since users are pretty slow in their actions.
For example :
MongoDB is consistent by default: reads and writes are issued to the
primary member of a replica set. Applications can optionally read from
secondary replicas, where data is eventually consistent by default.
from official MongoDB FAQ
Another alternative that is getting more popular is to use a streaming platform such as Apache Kafka where it is up to your architecture design how fast the stream consumer will process the data (for eventual consistency). Since the stream platform is very fast it is mostly only up to the speed of your stream processor to make the data available at the right place. So we are talking about milliseconds and not even seconds in most cases.
The key thing in these sorts of architectures is to have each service be autonomous when it comes to writes: it can take the write even if none of the other application-level services are up.
So in the example of a twitter like service, you would model it as
Service A manages the content of a post
So when a user makes a post, a write happens in Service A's DB and from that instant the post can be edited because editing is just a request to A.
If there's some other service that consumes the "post content" change events from A and after a "new post" event exposes some functionality, that functionality isn't going to be exposed until that service sees the event (yay tautologies). But that's just physics: the sun could have gone supernova five minutes ago and we can't take any action (not that we could have) until we "see the light".
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.