I have recently started looking into the Akka 2.0 framework and was able to get some code running, spawning actors that perform simple oracle database calls, performing simple calculations and whatnot, nothing in production however.
What I want to know, is there a general rule of thumb or best practice to determining how many actors to spawn for certain types of tasks? Say for example, I have a connection pool of 200 jdbc connections, Do I create an actor to represent each connection? Do I create a handful of them and use a round-robin approach?
Thanks.
Note that numberOf(actors) != numberOf(threads).
You should create an actor for every entity that would otherwise share mutable state across threads. The whole thing about the actor model is that it shall isolate mutable state so that only immutable messages get exchanged between the actors. The result is that you don't need any locks anymore and you can easily reason about the thread safety of your program because all mutable state is isolated in actors and you can rely on the framework to properly pass the memory barrier whenever required, e.g. when switching an actor from one thread to another.
The number of threads is a different subject: This depends on the number of cores and the blocking coefficient for each thread, i.e. the percentage of time it spends waiting for other threads or the I/O subsystem. For example, if your actors are doing CPU intensive calculations (e.g. calculating Pi) then the blocking coefficient will be close to 0%. If however your actors are doing mostly I/O, you can easily assume a blocking coefficient of 90% or more.
Finally, the number of threads can be calculated like this:
int threads = Runtime.getRuntime().availableProcessors() * 100 / (100 - blockingCoefficient)
where blockingCoefficient represents an integer percentage between 0 and 99 inclusively.
You can create as many actors as you like, however, you're limited to about 2 billion per parent, also don't forget to stop them when they are done. Also, do not create your actors as top level unless they're actually top-level actors. (i.e. create actors inside actors using context.actorOf instead of system.actorOf)
Related
I'm building a Go app which uses a "worker pool" of goroutines, initially I start the pool creating a number of workers. I was wondering what would be the optimal number of workers in a mult-core processor, for example in a CPU with 4 cores ? I'm currently using the following aproach:
// init pool
numCPUs := runtime.NumCPU()
runtime.GOMAXPROCS(numCPUs + 1) // numCPUs hot threads + one for async tasks.
maxWorkers := numCPUs * 4
jobQueue := make(chan job.Job)
module := Module{
Dispatcher: job.NewWorkerPool(maxWorkers),
JobQueue: jobQueue,
Router: router,
}
// A buffered channel that we can send work requests on.
module.Dispatcher.Run(jobQueue)
The complete implementation is under
job.NewWorkerPool(maxWorkers)
and
module.Dispatcher.Run(jobQueue)
My use-case for using a worker pool: I have a service which accepts requests and calls multiple external APIs and aggregate their results into a single response. Each call can be done independently from others as the order of results doesn't matter. I dispatch the calls to the worker pool where each call is done in one available goroutine in an asynchronous way. My "request" thread keeps listening to the return channels while fetching and aggregating results as soon as a worker thread is done. When all are done the final aggregated result is returned as a response. Since each external API call may render variable response times some calls can be completed earlier than others. As per my understanding doing it in a parallel way would be better in terms of performance as if compared to doing it in a synchronous way calling each external API one after another
The comments in your sample code suggest you may be conflating the two concepts of GOMAXPROCS and a worker pool. These two concepts are completely distinct in Go.
GOMAXPROCS sets the maximum number of CPU threads the Go runtime will use. This defaults to the number of CPU cores found on the system, and should almost never be changed. The only time I can think of to change this would be if you wanted to explicitly limit a Go program to use fewer than the available CPUs for some reason, then you might set this to 1, for example, even when running on a 4-core CPU. This should only ever matter in rare situations.
TL;DR; Never set runtime.GOMAXPROCS manually.
Worker pools in Go are a set of goroutines, which handle jobs as they arrive. There are different ways of handling worker pools in Go.
What number of workers should you use? There is no objective answer. Probably the only way to know is to benchmark various configurations until you find one that meets your requirements.
As a simple case, suppose your worker pool is doing something very CPU-intensive. In this case, you probably want one worker per CPU.
As a more likely example, though, lets say your workers are doing something more I/O bound--such as reading HTTP requests, or sending email via SMTP. In this case, you may reasonably handle dozens or even thousands of workers per CPU.
And then there's also the question of if you even should use a worker pool. Most problems in Go do not require worker pools at all. I've worked on dozens of production Go programs, and never once used a worker pool in any of them. I've also written many times more one-time-use Go tools, and only used a worker pool maybe once.
And finally, the only way in which GOMAXPROCS and worker pools relate is the same as how goroutines relates to GOMAXPROCS. From the docs:
The GOMAXPROCS variable limits the number of operating system threads that can execute user-level Go code simultaneously. There is no limit to the number of threads that can be blocked in system calls on behalf of Go code; those do not count against the GOMAXPROCS limit. This package's GOMAXPROCS function queries and changes the limit.
From this simple description, it's easy to see that there could be many more (potentially hundreds of thousands... or more) goroutines than GOMAXPROCS--GOMAXPROCS only limits how many "operating system threads that can execute user-level Go code simultaneously"--goroutines which aren't executing user-level Go code at the moment don't count. And in I/O-bound goroutines (such as those waiting for a network response) aren't executing code. So you have a theoretical maximum number of goroutines limited only by your system's available memory.
I have a cluster application, which is divided into a controller and a bunch of workers. The controller runs on a dedicated host, the workers phone in over the network and get handed jobs, so far so normal. (Basically the "divide-and-conquer pipeline" from the zeromq manual, with job-specific wrinkles. That's not important right now.)
The controller's core data structure is unordered_map<string, queue<string>> in pseudo-C++ (the controller is actually implemented in Python, but I am open to the possibility of rewriting it in something else). The strings in the queues define jobs, and the keys of the map are a categorization of the jobs. The controller is seeded with a set of jobs; when a worker starts up, the controller removes one string from one of the queues and hands it out as the worker's first job. The worker may crash during the run, in which case the job gets put back on the appropriate queue (there is an ancillary table of outstanding jobs). If it completes the job successfully, it will send back a list of new job-strings, which the controller will sort into the appropriate queues. Then it will pull another string off some queue and send it to the worker as its next job; usually, but not always, it will pick the same queue as the previous job for that worker.
Now, the question. This data structure currently sits entirely in main memory, which was fine for small-scale test runs, but at full scale is eating all available RAM on the controller, all by itself. And the controller has several other tasks to accomplish, so that's no good.
What approach should I take? So far, I have considered:
a) to convert this to a primarily-on-disk data structure. It could be cached in RAM to some extent for efficiency, but jobs take tens of seconds to complete, so it's okay if it's not that efficient,
b) using a relational database - e.g. SQLite, (but SQL schemas are a very poor fit AFAICT),
c) using a NoSQL database with persistency support, e.g. Redis (data structure maps over trivially, but this still appears very RAM-centric to make me feel confident that the memory-hog problem will actually go away)
Concrete numbers: For a full-scale run, there will be between one and ten million keys in the hash, and less than 100 entries in each queue. String length varies wildly but is unlikely to be more than 250-ish bytes. So, a hypothetical (impossible) zero-overhead data structure would require 234 – 237 bytes of storage.
Ultimately, it all boils down on how you define efficiency needed on part of the controller -- e.g. response times, throughput, memory consumption, disk consumption, scalability... These properties are directly or indirectly related to:
number of requests the controller needs to handle per second (throughput)
acceptable response times
future growth expectations
From your options, here's how I'd evaluate each option:
a) to convert this to a primarily-on-disk data structure. It could be
cached in RAM to some extent for efficiency, but jobs take tens of
seconds to complete, so it's okay if it's not that efficient,
Given the current memory hog requirement, some form of persistent storage seems a reaonsable choice. Caching comes into play if there is a repeatable access pattern, say the same queue is accessed over and over again -- otherwise, caching is likely not to help.
This option makes sense if 1) you cannot find a database that maps trivially to your data structure (unlikely), 2) for some other reason you want to have your own on-disk format, e.g. you find that converting to a database is too much overhead (again, unlikely).
One alternative to databases is to look at persistent queues (e.g. using a RabbitMQ backing store), but I'm not sure what the per-queue or overall size limits are.
b) using a relational database - e.g. SQLite, (but SQL schemas are a
very poor fit AFAICT),
As you mention, SQL is probably not a good fit for your requirements, even though you could surely map your data structure to a relational model somehow.
However, NoSQL databases like MongoDB or CouchDB seem much more appropriate. Either way, a database of some sort seems viable as long as they can meet your throughput requirement. Many if not most NoSQL databases are also a good choice from a scalability perspective, as they include support for sharding data across multiple machines.
c) using a NoSQL database with persistency support, e.g. Redis (data
structure maps over trivially, but this still appears very RAM-centric
to make me feel confident that the memory-hog problem will actually go
away)
An in-memory database like Redis doesn't solve the memory hog problem, unless you set up a cluster of machines that each holds a part of the overall data. This makes sense only if keeping all data in-memory is needed due to low response times requirements. Yet, given the nature of your jobs, taking tens of seconds to complete, response times, respective to workers, hardly matter.
If you find, however, that response times do matter, Redis would be a good choice, as it handles partitioning trivially using either client-side consistent-hashing or at the cluster level, thus also supporting scalability scenarios.
In any case
Before you choose a solution, be sure to clarify your requirements. You mention you want an efficient solution. Since efficiency can only be gauged against some set of requirements, here's the list of questions I would try to answer first:
*Requirements
how many jobs are expected to complete, say per minute or per hour?
how many workers are needed to do so?
concluding from that:
what is the expected load in requestes/per second, and
what response times are expected on part of the controller (handing out jobs, receiving results)?
And looking into the future:
will the workload increase, i.e. does your solution need to scale up (more jobs per time unit, more more data per job?)
will there be a need for persistency of jobs and results, e.g. for auditing purposes?
Again, concluding from that,
how will this influence the number of workers?
what effect will it have on the number of requests/second on part of the controller?
With these answers, you will find yourself in a better position to choose a solution.
I would look into a message queue like RabbitMQ. This way it will first fill up the RAM and then use the disk. I have up to 500,000,000 objects in queues on a single server and it's just plugging away.
RabbitMQ works on Windows and Linux and has simple connectors/SDKs to about any kind of language.
https://www.rabbitmq.com/
I want to know the applicability of the Akka Actor model.
I know it is useful in the case a huge number of Actor instances are created and destroyed. e.g. a call server, where every incoming call creates an actor instance and communicates with few other actors and get killed after the call is over.
Is it also useful in the following scenario :
A server has a few processing elements (10~50) implemented over Actors. The lifetime of these processing elements is infinite. some of them do not maintain state and a few maintain state. The processing elements process the message and pass the message to other actors in a fixed manner. The system receives a huge number of messages from outside and gets passed through processing elements and goes out of the system.
My gut feeling is that we cannot get any advantage by using Akka Actor model and even implementing this server in Scala. Because the use case for which Akka is designed, is not applicable here. If the scale-up meant that processing elements be increased dynamically then it would be applicable.
For fixed topologies, I think if i implement it in Java, it is going to be more beneficial in terms of raw performance. The 'immutability' feature of Scala leads to more copies and so reduces performance. So i believe i better stick to Java.
Is my understanding correct? I a nut shell i want to know why i should leave Java and use Scala/Akka for the application scenario above. and my target is to process 1 million messages per second.
If this question is still actual...
Scala vs. Java
Scala gives productivity to developers.
Immutability decreases debugging to almost zero level.
GC perfectly copes with waste immutables.
Akka Actors vs. other means
Akka has dispatcher that distributes all tasks across fixed thread pool. This allows to evenly consume available resources. This approach is much better than the fixed worker threads — the processing resources are provided to the tasks not DataFlow nodes.
DataFlow implementation
There is a SynapseGrid library that is built on top of Akka Actors and allows easy construction of DataFlow systems distributed over fixed immortal Actors. It can even draw the DataFlow diagram (in .dot format) of the whole system.
(The library is more convenient to be used with Scala.)
Is it logical to say: "If average service time for a request is X and affordable waiting time for the requests is Y then maximum number of concurrent requests to serve would be Y / X" ?
I think what I'm asking is that if there're any hidden factors that I'm not taking into account!?
If you're talking specifically about webservers, then no, your formula doesn't work, because webservers are designed to handle multiple, simultaneous requests, using forking or threading.
This turns the formula into something far harder to quantify - in my experience, web servers can handle LOTS (i.e. hundreds or thousands) of concurrent requests which consume little or no time, but tend to reduce that concurrency quite dramatically as the requests consume more time.
That means that "average service time" isn't massively useful - it can hide wide variations, and it's actually the outliers that affect you the most.
Broadly yes, but your service provider (webserver in your case) is capable of handling more than one request in parallel, so you should take that into account. I assume you measured end to end service time and havent already averaged it by number of parallel streams. One other thing you didnt and cannot realistically measure is the delay to/from your website.
What you are heading towards is the Erlang unit (not the language using the same name) which is used to described how much load a system can take. Erlangs are unitless (it is just a number) and originated from old school telephony, POTS, where it was used to describe how many wires were needed to handle X calls per time period with low blocking probability. Beyond erlang is engset which is used more for high capacity systems, such as mobile systems.
It also gets used for expensive consultant reports into realtime computer systems and databases to describe the point at which performance degradation is likely to occur. Wikipedia has an article on this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erlang_(unit) and the book 'Fixed and mobile telecommunications, network systems and services' has a good chapter on performance analysis.
While aimed at telephone systems, just replace with word webserver and it behaves the same. A webserver is the same concept, load is offered that arrives at random intervals to a system with finite parallel capacity. In your case, you can probably calculate total load with load tools easier than parallel capacity and then back calculate the formulas. This is widely done to gain a level of confidence in overall system models.
Erlang/engsetformulas are really useful when you have a randomly arriving load over parallel stream (ie web requests) and a service time that can only be averaged or estimated (ie it varies in real life). You can then calculate the blocking probability, which is the probability a new request will need to wait while current requests are serviced, and how long it will wait. It also helps analyse whether you need to handle more requests in parallel, or make each faster (#lines and holding time in erlang speak)
You will probably look into queuing systems analysis next, as a soon as requests block (queue), the models change slightly.
many factors are not taken into account
memory limits
data locking constraints such as people wanting to update the same data
application latency
caching mechanisms
different users will have different tasks on the site and put different loads
That said, one easy way to get a rough estimate is with apache ab tool (apache benchmark)
Example, get 1000 times the homepage with 100 requests at a time:
ab -c 100 -n 1000 http://www.example.com/
I'm working on an application that is distributed over two JBoss instances and that produces/consumes JMS messages on several JMS queues.
When we configured the application we had to determine which threading model we would use, in particular the number of producing and consuming threads per queue. We have done this in a rather ad-hoc fashion but after reading the most recent columns by Herb Sutter in Dr Dobbs (in particular this one) I would like to size our threads in a more rigorous manner.
Are there any methods/tools to measure the throughput of JMS queues (in particular JBoss Messaging queues) as a function of the number of producing/consuming threads?
This is not really about a specific tool, but may be helpful.
Consumers:
Not sure what your inner architecture is, but let's assume it's an MDB reading in messages. I assert that your only requirement here for rigorous thread count sizing is to choose a maximum cap. If your MDB uses resources from a finite supplier like a JDBC connection pool, consider the maximum cap as the highest number of concurrent instances from that resource that you can tolerate taking. If the MDB's queue is remote, you probably want to consider remote connections (or technically, JMS sessions) a finite resource. If the MDB has less finite requirements (and the queue is local), your maximum cap becomes the number of threads, memory used and/or flat out CPU consumed by the working threads. The reasoning here is that the JBoss MDB container will simply keep allocating more MDB instances (and therefore threads) until the queue is empty or the maximum cap is reached. The only reason I can think of that you would really agonize over the minimum would be if the container's elapsed time or overhead to create new instances is above your tolerance and those operations are usually pretty small potatoes.
Producers
A general axiom of messaging is that producers nearly always outperform consumers. You would think this is pretty arbitrary, but it is a pattern I see recurring all the time, even in widely different messaging scenarios. Anyways, it's tough to say how the threading should work for the producer without knowing a bit about the application, but are you basically capable of [indefinitely] proportionally increasing the number of producer threads and the number of messages generated, or do you have some sort of cap where additional threads simply do not generate more messages ? I would guess it is the latter since most useful work has some limited data or calculation supplier. As I see it, the two drivers here are ordering and persistence.
First off, if you have strict message ordering where messages must be processed in strict (FPFP) First Produced First Processed then you're in a bit of a bind because you almost have to drop down to single threaded throughput unless you can devise some form of logical message demarcation (eg. a client number where any given client's messages are always sent to the same queue, but you may have multiple queues each serviced by one thread so each client is effectively FPFP).
Ordering aside, persistence is the next consideration in that if you have reliable and extensive message persistence, (or have a very high tolerance for message loss) just let the producer threads go to town. The messages will queue up reliably and eventually the consumers will [hopefully] catch up. However, if your message persistence message count or simple queue depths can potentially give you the willies when they get too high, here's where a tool might come in useful. If your producer thread count can be dynamically modified (which they can in many Java ThreadPool implementations) then you could sample the queue depths and raise or lower the producer thread count in accordance with the queue depth ranges you define, optionally to the point where if the consumers basically stall, so will the producers. I do not know of a specific tool that does this but between two JBoss servers this is fairly simple to whip up. Picking your queue depth-->producer thread count will be trickier.
Having said all that, I am going to actually read the article you linked to.....
I've got the perfect thing for you: IBM provide a free command line tool called perfharness.
It's aimed at benchmarking JMS providers, i.e. measuring the throughput of queues (single or multiple) given different numbers of producing or consuming threads.
Some features:
Send and consume messages at a fixed rate (msg/s) or at maximum rate possible on the queue
Use a specific number of threads
Use either JMS or native MQ
Can use data either generated randomly or taken from a file
Generates statistics telling you exactly how fast your queue is performing
The only down side is that it's not super intuitive, given the number of operations it supports. And IBM haven't open sourced it, which is a shame. However it sounds perfect for your purposes.