I've got multiple servers sharing a database - on each of them a cron job fires ever 5 min checking if a text message log entry doesn't exist, creates a text message log entry and sends out a text message. I thought that there would never be a situation where text messages are sent multiple times, as one server should be first.
Well - I was wrong and that scenario did happen:
A - check if log exists - it doesn't
B - check if log exists - it doesn't
A - create log
B - create log
A - send message
B - send message
I've changed this behaviour to introduce queue, which should mitigate the issue. While the crons will still fire, multiple jobs will be queued, and workers should pick up given jobs at different times, thus preventing of sending of message twice. Though it might as well end up being:
A - pick up job 1
B - pick up job 2
A - check if log exists - it doesn't
B - check if log exists - it doesn't
Etc or A and B might as well pickup the same job at exactly the same time.
The solution would be, I guess, to run one worker server. But then I've the situation that jobs from multiple servers are queued many times, and I can't check if they're already enqueued as we end up with first scenario.
I'm at loss on how to proceed here - while multiple server, one worker server setup will work, I don't want to end up with instances of the same job (coming from different servers) multiple times in the queue.
Maybe the solution to go for is to have one cron/queue/worker server, but I don't have experience with Laravel/multiserver environment to set it up.
The other problematic thing for me is - how to test this? I can't, I guess, test it locally unless there's a way I can spin VM instances that are synchronized with each other.
The easy answer:
The code that checks the database for the existing database entry could use a database transaction with a level high enough to make sure that everyone else that is trying to do the same thing at the same time will be blocked and wait for the job to finish/commit.
A really naive solution (assuming mysql) would be LOCK TABLES entries WRITE; followed by the logic, then UNLOCK TABLES when you're done.
This also means that no one can access the table while your job is doing the check. I hope the check is really quick, because you'll block all access to the table for a small time period every five minutes.
WRITE lock:
The session that holds the lock can read and write the table.
Only the session that holds the lock can access the table. No other session can access it until the lock is released.
Lock requests for the table by other sessions block while the WRITE lock is held.
Source: https://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.7/en/lock-tables.html
That was a really boring answer, so I'll move on to the answer you're probably more interested in...
The server architecture answer:
Your wish to only have one job per time interval in your queue means that you should only have one machine dispatching the jobs. This is easiest done with one dedicated machine that only dispatches jobs from scheduled commands. (Laravel 5.5 introduced the ability to dispatch jobs directly from the scheduler; see Scheduling Queued Jobs)
You can then have an several worker machines processing the queue, and only one of them will pick up the job and execute it. Two worker machines will never execute the same job at the same time if everything works as usual*.
I would split up the web machines from the worker machines so that they can scale independently. I prefer having my web machines dedicated to web traffic, they are not processing jobs to make sure that any large amount of queued jobs will not affect my http response times.
So, I recommend the following machine types in your setup;
The scheduler - one single machine that runs the schedule and dispatches jobs.
Worker machines that handles your queue.
Web machines that handles visitors' traffic.
All machines will have identical source code for your Laravel application. They will also also have an identical configuration. The only think that is unique per machine type is ...
The scheduler has php artisan schedule:run in the crontab.
The workers have supervisor (or something similar) that runs php artisan queue:work.
The web servers have nginx + php-fpm and handles incoming web requests.
This setup will make sure that you will only get one job per 5 minute since there is only one machine that is pushing it. This setup will also make sure that the cpu load generated by the workers aren't affecting the web requests.
One issue with my answer is obvious; that single scheduler machine is a single point of failure. If it dies you will no longer have any of these scheduled jobs dispatched to the queue. That touches areas like server monitoring and health checks, which is out-of-scope of your question and are also highly dependant on your hosting provider.
Regarding that little asterisk; I can make up weird scenarios where a job is executed on several machines. This involves jobs that sleeps for longer than the timeout, while at the same time you've got an environment without support for terminating the job. This will cause the first worker to keep executing the job (since it cannot terminate it), and a second worker will consider the job as timed-out and retry it.
Since Laravel 5.6+ you can ensure your scheduled tasks only run on a single instance using the onOneServer function e.g.
$schedule->command('loggingTask')
->everyFiveMinutes()
->onOneServer();
This requires an APC or Redis cache to be set up because it seems to use a mutual exclusion lock, probably RedisLock if Redis is set up.
Using a queue you shouldn't really have such a problem because popping a task off a queue should be an atomic operation.
Source
Related
We are building a reporting app on Laravel that need to fetch users data from a third-party server that allow 1 request per seconds.
We need to fetch 100K to 1000K rows based on user and we can fetch max 250 rows per request.
So the restriction is:
1. We can send 1 request per seconds
2. 250 rows per request
So, it requires 400-4000 request/jobs to fetch a user data, So, loading data for multiple users is very time-consuming and the server gets slow.
So, now, we are planning to load the data using multiple servers, like 4-10 servers to fetch users data, so we can send 10 requests per second from 10 servers.
How can we design the system and process jobs from multiple servers?
Is it possible to use a dedicated server for hosting Redis and connect to that Redis server from multiple servers and execute jobs? Can any conflict/race-condition happen?
Any hint or prior experience related to this would be really helpful.
The short answer is yes, this is absolutely possible and is something I've implemented in production apps many times before.
Redis is just like any other service and can run anywhere, with clients from anywhere, connecting to it. It's all up to your configuration of the server to dictate how exactly that happens (and adding passwords, configuring spiped, limiting access via the firewall, etc.). I'd reccommend reading up on the documentation they have in the Administration section here: https://redis.io/documentation
Also, when you do make the move to a dedicated Redis host, with multiple clients accessing it, you'll likely want to look into having more than just one Redis server running for reliability, high availability, etc. Redis has efficient and easy replication available with a few simple configuration commands, which you can read more about here: https://redis.io/topics/replication
Last thing on Redis, if you do end up implementing a master-slave set up, you may want to look into high availability and auto-failover if your Master instance were to go down. Redis has a really great utility built into the application that can monitor your Master and Slaves, detect when the Master is down, and automatically re-configure your servers to promote one of the slaves to the new master. The utility is called Redis Sentinel, and you can read about that here: https://redis.io/topics/sentinel
For your question about race conditions, it depends on how exactly you write your jobs that are pushed onto the queue. For your use case though, it doesn't sound like this would be too much of an issue, but it really depends on the constraints of the third-party system. Either way, if you are subject to a race condition, you can still implement a solution for it, but would likely need to use something like a Redis Lock (https://redis.io/topics/distlock). Taylor recently added a new feature to the upcoming Laravel version 5.6 that I believe implements a version of the Redis Lock in the scheduler (https://medium.com/#taylorotwell/laravel-5-6-preview-single-server-scheduling-54df8e0e139b). You can look into how that was implemented, and adapt for your use case if you end up needing it.
Is it possible to create a script that is always running on my VPS server? And what need i to do to run it the hole time? (I haven't yet a VPS server, but if this is possible i wants to buy one!
Yes you can, there are many methods to get your expected result.
Supervisord
Supervisord is a process control system that keeps any process running. It automatically start or restart your process whenever necessary.
When to use it: Use it when you need a process that run continuously, eg.:
A queue worker that reads a database continuously waiting for a job to run.
A node application that acts like a daemon
Cron
Cron allow you running processes regularly, in time intervals. You can for example run a process every 1 minute, or every 30 minutes, or any time interval you need.
When to use it: Use it when your process is not long running, it do a task and end, and you do not need it beign restarted automatically like on Supervisord, eg.:
A task that collects logs everyday and send it on a gzip by email
A backup routine.
Whatever you choose, there are many tutorials on the internet on how configuring both, so I'll not go into this details.
I have a Laravel application where the Application servers are behind a Load Balancer. On these Application servers, I have cron jobs running, some of which should only be run once (or run on one instance).
I did some research and found that people seem to favor a lock-system, where you keep all the cron jobs active on each application box, and when one goes to process a job, you create some sort of lock so the others know not to process the same job.
I was wondering if anyone had more details on this procedure in regards to AWS, or if there's a better solution for this problem?
You can build distributed locking mechanisms on AWS using DynamoDB with strongly consistent reads. You can also do something similar using Redis (ElastiCache).
Alternatively, you could use Lambda scheduled events to send a request to your load balancer on a cron schedule. Since only one back-end server would receive the request that server could execute the cron job.
These solutions tend to break when your autoscaling group experiences a scale-in event and the server processing the task gets deleted. I prefer to have a small server, like a t2.nano, that isn't part of the cluster and schedule cron jobs on that.
Check out this package for Laravel implementation of the lock system (DB implementation):
https://packagist.org/packages/jdavidbakr/multi-server-event
Also, this pull request solves this problem using the lock system (cache implementation):
https://github.com/laravel/framework/pull/10965
If you need to run stuff only once globally (so not once on every server) and 'lock' the thing that needs to be run, I highly recommend using AWS SQS because it offers exactly that: run a cron to fetch a ticket. If you get one, parse it. Otherwise, do nothing. So all crons are active on all machines, but tickets are 'in flight' when some machine requests a ticket and that specific ticket cannot be requested by another machine.
From gearman's main page, they mention running with multiple job servers so if a job server dies, the clients can pick up a new job server. Given the statement and diagram below, it seems that the job servers do not communicate with each other.
Our question is what happens to those jobs that are queued in the job server that died? What is the best practice to have high-availability for these servers to make sure jobs aren't interrupted in a failure?
You are able to run multiple job servers and have the clients and workers connect to the first available job server they are configured with. This way if one job server dies, clients and workers automatically fail over to another job server. You probably don't want to run too many job servers, but having two or three is a good idea for redundancy.
Source
As far as I know there is no proper way to handle this at the moment, but as long as you run both job servers with permanent queues (using MySQL or another datastore - just don't use the same actual queue for both servers), you can simply restart the job server and it'll load its queue from the database. This will allow all the queued tasks to be submitted to available workers, even after the server has died.
There is however no automagical way of doing this when a job server goes down, so if both the job server and the datastore goes down (a server running both locally goes down) will leave the tasks in limbo until it gets back online.
The permanent queue is only read on startup (and inserted / deleted from as tasks are submitted and completed).
I'm not sure about the complexity required to add such functionality to gearmand and whether it's actually wanted, but simple "task added, task handed out, task completed"-notifications between servers shouldn't been too complicated to handle.
My server process is basically an API that responds to REST requests.
Some of these requests are for starting long running tasks.
Is it a bad idea to do something like this?
get "/crawl_the_web" do
Thread.new do
Crawler.new # this will take many many days to complete
end
end
get "/status" do
"going well" # this can be run while there are active Crawler threads
end
The server won't be handling more than 1000 requests a day.
Not the best idea....
Use a background job runner to run jobs.
POST /crawl_the_web should simply add a job to the job queue. The background job runner will periodically check for new jobs on the queue and execute them in order.
You can use, for example, delayed_job for this, setting up a single separate process to poll for and run the jobs. If you are on Heroku, you can use the delayed_job feature to run the jobs in a separate background worker/dyno.
If you do this, how are you planning to stop/restart your sinatra app? When you finally deploy your app, your application is probably going to be served by unicorn, passenger/mod_rails, etc. Unicorn will manage the lifecycle of its child processes and it would have no knowledge of these long-running threads that you might have launched and that's a problem.
As someone suggested above, use delayed_job, resque or any other queue-based system to run background jobs. You get persistence of the jobs, you get horizontal scalability (just launch more workers on more nodes), etc.
Starting threads during request processing is a bad idea.
Besides that you cannot control your worker threads (start/stop them in a controlled way), you'll quickly get into troubles if you start a thread inside request processing. Think about what happens - the request ends and the process gets prepared to serve the next request, while your worker thread still runs and accesses process-global resources like the database connection, open files, same class variables and global variables and so on. Sooner or later, your worker thread (or any library used from it) will affect the main thread somehow and break other requests and it will be almost impossible to debug.
You're really better off using separate worker processes. delayed_job for example is a really small dependency and easy to use.