I'm trying to replace a small homegrown messaging system, and are playing around a bit with zmq .
I'll be needing to detect slow readers, and boot/disconnect them - slow readers pretty much meaning a particular consumer whos queue size is above a certain threshold.
So far it seems zmq blocks every consumer if one of them is a bit slow (fair enough) - but
I can't find any way to detect a potential slow consumer. Anyone have any experience with
wether and how this is possible with zmq - or have any other broker-less messaging system to recccommend ?
As of zeromq-2.0.7, you can set the ZMQ_HWM option on a ZMQ_PUB socket to control the maximum number of messages that can be queued for a subscriber. Once the high-water mark has been reached, all further messages destined for that subscriber will be dropped until the queue size drops back below the high-water mark. This limits the amount of memory dedicated to what you call a slow reader.
However, because the ZeroMQ library exposes sockets, not clients, there is no way for you to identify and forcibly disconnect unwanted clients without modifying the library itself.
There is a section in the ZeroMq Guide regarding this, it suggests implementing a pattern the call the "Suicidal Snail Pattern".
Basically, it reverses the dependency and tries to convince slow subscribers to disconnect/kill themselves by giving them a way to detect if they have become slow readers.
Related
I am trying to understand what is the use case of a queue in distributed system.
And also how it scales and how it makes sure it's not a single point of failure in the system?
Any direct answer or a reference to a document is appreciated.
Use case:
I understand that queue is a messaging system. And it decouples the systems that communicate between each other. But, is that the only point of using a queue?
Scalability:
How does the queue scale for high volumes of data? Both read and write.
Reliability:
How does the queue not becoming a single point of failure in the system? Does the queue do a replication, similar to data-storage?
My question is not specified to any particular queue server like Kafka or JMS. Just in general.
Queue is a mental concept, the implementation decides about 1 + 2 + 3
A1: No, it is not the only role -- a messaging seems to be main one, but a distributed-system signalling is another one, by no means any less important. Hoare's seminal CSP-paper is a flagship in this field. Recent decades gave many more options and "smart-behaviours" to work with in designing a distributed-system signalling / messaging services' infrastructures.
A2: Scaling envelopes depend a lot on implementation. It seems obvious that a broker-less queues can work way faster, that a centralised, broker-based, infrastructure. Transport-classes and transport-links account for additional latency + performance degradation as the data-flow volumes grow. BLOB-handling is another level of a performance cliff, as the inefficiencies are accumulating down the distributed processing chain. Zero-copy ( almost ) zero-latency smart-Queue implementations are still victims of the operating systems and similar resources limitations.
A3: Oh sure it is, if left on its own, the SPOF. However, Theoretical Cybernetics makes us safe, as we can create reliable systems, while still using error-prone components. ( M + N )-failure-resilient schemes are thus achievable, however the budget + creativity + design-discipline is the ceiling any such Project has to survive with.
my take:
I would be careful with "decouple" term - if service A calls api on service B, there is coupling since there is a contract between services; this is true even if the communication is happening over a queue, file or fax. The key with queues is that the communication between services is asynchronous. Which means their runtimes are decoupled - from practical point of view, either of systems may go down without affecting the other.
Queues can scale for large volumes of data by partitioning. From clients point of view, there is one queue, but in reality there are many queues/shards and number of shards helps to support more data. Of course sharding a queue is not "free" - you will lose global ordering of events, which may need to be addressed in you application.
A good queue based solution is reliable based on replication/consensus/etc - depends on set of desired properties. Queues are not very different from databases in this regard.
To give you more direction to dig into:
there an interesting feature of queues: deliver-exactly-once, deliver-at-most-once, etc
may I recommend Enterprise Architecture Patterns - https://www.enterpriseintegrationpatterns.com/patterns/messaging/Messaging.html this is a good "system design" level of information
queues may participate in distributed transactions, e.g. you could build something like delete a record from database and write it into queue, and that will be either done/committed or rolledback - another interesting topic to explore
I'm developing a web app that needs to handle bursts of very high loads,
once per minute I get a burst of requests in very few seconds (~1M-3M/sec) and then for the rest of the minute I get nothing,
What's my best strategy to handle as many req /sec as possible at each front server, just sending a reply and storing the request in memory somehow to be processed in the background by the DB writer worker later ?
The aim is to do as less as possible during the burst, and write the requests to the DB ASAP after the burst.
Edit : the order of transactions in not important,
we can lose some transactions but 99% need to be recorded
latency of getting all requests to the DB can be a few seconds after then last request has been received. Lets say not more than 15 seconds
This question is kind of vague. But I'll take a stab at it.
1) You need limits. A simple implementation will open millions of connections to the DB, which will obviously perform badly. At the very least, each connection eats MB of RAM on the DB. Even with connection pooling, each 'thread' could take a lot of RAM to record it's (incoming) state.
If your app server had a limited number of processing threads, you can use HAProxy to "pick up the phone" and buffer the request in a queue for a few seconds until there is a free thread on your app server to handle the request.
In fact, you could just use a web server like nginx to take the request and say "200 OK". Then later, a simple app reads the web log and inserts into DB. This will scale pretty well, although you probably want one thread reading the log and several threads inserting.
2) If your language has coroutines, it may be better to handle the buffering yourself. You should measure the overhead of relying on our language runtime for scheduling.
For example, if each HTTP request is 1K of headers + data, want to parse it and throw away everything but the one or two pieces of data that you actually need (i.e. the DB ID). If you rely on your language coroutines as an 'implicit' queue, it will have 1K buffers for each coroutine while they are being parsed. In some cases, it's more efficient/faster to have a finite number of workers, and manage the queue explicitly. When you have a million things to do, small overheads add up quickly, and the language runtime won't always be optimized for your app.
Also, Go will give you far better control over your memory than Node.js. (Structs are much smaller than objects. The 'overhead' for the Keys to your struct is a compile-time thing for Go, but a run-time thing for Node.js)
3) How do you know it's working? You want to be able to know exactly how you are doing. When you rely on the language co-routines, it's not easy to ask "how many threads of execution do I have and what's the oldest one?" If you make an explicit queue, those questions are much easier to ask. (Imagine a handful of workers putting stuff in the queue, and a handful of workers pulling stuff out. There is a little uncertainty around the edges, but the queue in the middle very explicitly captures your backlog. You can easily calculate things like "drain rate" and "max memory usage" which are very important to knowing how overloaded you are.)
My advice: Go with Go. Long term, Go will be a much better choice. The Go runtime is a bit immature right now, but every release is getting better. Node.js is probably slightly ahead in a few areas (maturity, size of community, libraries, etc.)
How about a channel with a buffer size equal to what the DB writer can handle in 15 seconds? When the request comes in, it is sent on the channel. If the channel is full, give some sort of "System Overloaded" error response.
Then the DB writer reads from the channel and writes to the database.
I have a custom python script that monitors the call logs from a Nortel phone system. This phone system is under extremely high volume throughout the day and it's starting to appear that some records may be getting lost.
Some of you may dislike this, but I'm not interested in sharing the source code or current method in any way. I would rather consider this from a "new project" approach.
I'm looking for insight into the easiest and safest way to reliably monitor heavy data output through a serial port on Linux. I'm not limiting this to any particular set of tools or languages, I want to find out what works best to do this one critical job. I'm comfortable enough parsing the data and inserting it into mysql that we could just assume the data could be dropped to a text file.
Thank you
Well, the way that I would approach this this to have 2 threads (or processes) working.
Thread 1: The read thread
This thread does nothing but read data from the raw serial port and put the data into a local buffer/queue (In memory is preferred for speed). It should do nothing else. Depending on the clock speed of the serial connection, this should be pretty easy to do.
Thread2: The processing thread
This thread just sleeps until there is data in the local buffer to process, then reads and processes it. That's it.
The reason for splitting it apart in two, is so that if one is busy (a block in MySQL for the processing thread) it won't affect the other. After all, while the serial port is buffered by the OS, the buffer size is limited.
But then again, any local program is likely going to be way faster than the serial port can send data. Serial transfer is actually quite slow relative to the clock speed of the processor (115.2kbps is about the limit on standard hardware). So unless you're CPU speed bound (such as on an Arduino), I can't see normal conditions affecting it too much. So your choice of language really shouldn't be of too much concern (assuming modern hardware). Stick to what you know.
I'm evaluating possible solutions for handling a large quantity of queued messages, which must be delivered to workers at a certain date and time. The result of executing them is mostly updates to stored data, and they may or may not be originally triggered by user action.
For example, think of what you'd implement in a hypothetical large-scale StarCraft game server for storing and executing users' actions, like upgrading a building, hatching a soldier, all of which requires to be applied to the game state after several seconds or minutes after the player initiates them.
The problem is I can't seem to find the right term to name this problem area. There are several that looks similar, but different:
cron/task/job scheduler
The content of the queue is not dynamic, it's predefined.
Each task is scheduled.
message queue
The content of the queue is dynamic.
Each task is intended to be delivered immediately.
???
The content of the queue is dynamic.
Each task is scheduled.
If there are message queues that allow conditional delivery of messages, that might be it.
Summary:
What are these kind of technology called?
What are some of the solutions out there?
This just sounds like a trivial priority queue on the surface. The priority in this case is the time of completion, and you check the front of the queue to see when the next event is due. Pretty much every language comes with a priority queue or something that can easily be used as one, so I'm not sure what the actual problem is here.
Is it that you're worried about scalability, when it comes to millions of messages? Obviously 'millions' is a meaningless term - if that's millions per day, it's a trivial problem. If it's millions per second, then you can just scale horizontally, splitting the queue across multiple processes. (And the benefit of such a queue system is that this parallelization is really simple.)
I would bet that when implementing a large scale real-time strategy game server you would hit networking problems long before you start hitting problems with the message queue.
Have you tried looking at push queues by Iron.io? The content of the queue can be anything you like, and you specify a webhook to where the messages will be pushed to. You can also set a delay for each of the messages.
The webhook is static though for each queue and delay isn't always exactly on time (could be up to a minute off). If timing is more important or the ability of providing a different webhook per message is important, try looking at boomerang.io.
They say they are pretty accurate on the timing, you can provide a delay or unix timestamp for the webhook to return and that is per message. Sounds like either of those might work for you.
For StarCraft, I would use the Red Dwarf server.
For a Java EE app, I would use Quartz Scheduler.
It seems to me that a queue-based solution would be best in this case for a number of reasons:
Management. Most queuing solutions provide support for inspecting the content of queues which makes it easier to debug, easier to take action when certain threshold are exceeded, ...
Performance. You can divide workload by having multiple enqueue/dequeue processes (gives you the ability to scale out).
Prioritizing. Most queues support prioritizing of messages (probably not all messages are equally important).
...
Remaining problem is the immediate delivery of messages in the queue. You have two ways to solve this: either delay enqueuing of messages or delay execution of dequeued messages. I would go with the first approach, delayed enqueuing.
A message then has two properties: (content, delay). You provide the message to a component in your system that queues the message at the appropriate time.
I'm not sure what programming language you're using, but the MS .NET 4 framework has support for such a scenario (delayed execution of tasks).
Why is it that I can find lots of information on "work stealing" and nothing on "work shrugging" as a dynamic load-balancing strategy?
By "work-shrugging" I mean pushing surplus work away from busy processors onto less loaded neighbours, rather than have idle processors pulling work from busy neighbours ("work-stealing").
I think the general scalability should be the same for both strategies. However I believe that it is much more efficient, in terms of latency & power consumption, to wake an idle processor when there is definitely work for it to do, rather than having all idle processors periodically polling all neighbours for possible work.
Anyway a quick google didn't show up anything under the heading of "Work Shrugging" or similar so any pointers to prior-art and the jargon for this strategy would be welcome.
Clarification
I actually envisage the work submitting processor (which may or may not be the target processor) being responsible for looking around the immediate locality of the preferred target processor (based on data/code locality) to decide if a near neighbour should be given the new work instead because they don't have as much work to do.
I dont think the decision logic would require much more than an atomic read of the immediate (typically 2 to 4) neighbours' estimated q length here. I do not think this is any more coupling than implied by the thieves polling & stealing from their neighbours. (I am assuming "lock-free, wait-free" queues in both strategies).
Resolution
It seems that what I meant (but only partially described!) as "Work Shrugging" strategy is in the domain of "normal" upfront scheduling strategies that happen to be smart about processor, cache & memory loyality, and scaleable.
I find plenty of references searching on these terms and several of them look pretty solid. I will post a reference when I identify one that best matches (or demolishes!) the logic I had in mind with my definition of "Work Shrugging".
Load balancing is not free; it has a cost of a context switch (to the kernel), finding the idle processors, and choosing work to reassign. Especially in a machine where tasks switch all the time, dozens of times per second, this cost adds up.
So what's the difference? Work-shrugging means you further burden over-provisioned resources (busy processors) with the overhead of load-balancing. Why interrupt a busy processor with administrivia when there's a processor next door with nothing to do? Work stealing, on the other hand, lets the idle processors run the load balancer while busy processors get on with their work. Work-stealing saves time.
Example
Consider: Processor A has two tasks assigned to it. They take time a1 and a2, respectively. Processor B, nearby (the distance of a cache bounce, perhaps), is idle. The processors are identical in all respects. We assume the code for each task and the kernel is in the i-cache of both processors (no added page fault on load balancing).
A context switch of any kind (including load-balancing) takes time c.
No Load Balancing
The time to complete the tasks will be a1 + a2 + c. Processor A will do all the work, and incur one context switch between the two tasks.
Work-Stealing
Assume B steals a2, incurring the context switch time itself. The work will be done in max(a1, a2 + c) time. Suppose processor A begins working on a1; while it does that, processor B will steal a2 and avoid any interruption in the processing of a1. All the overhead on B is free cycles.
If a2 was the shorter task, here, you have effectively hidden the cost of a context switch in this scenario; the total time is a1.
Work-Shrugging
Assume B completes a2, as above, but A incurs the cost of moving it ("shrugging" the work). The work in this case will be done in max(a1, a2) + c time; the context switch is now always in addition to the total time, instead of being hidden. Processor B's idle cycles have been wasted, here; instead, a busy processor A has burned time shrugging work to B.
I think the problem with this idea is that it makes the threads with actual work to do waste their time constantly looking for idle processors. Of course there are ways to make that faster, like have a queue of idle processors, but then that queue becomes a concurrency bottleneck. So it's just better to have the threads with nothing better to do sit around and look for jobs.
The basic advantage of 'work stealing' algorithms is that the overhead of moving work around drops to 0 when everyone is busy. So there's only overhead when some processor would otherwise have been idle, and that overhead cost is mostly paid by the idle processor with only a very small bus-synchronization related cost to the busy processor.
Work stealing, as I understand it, is designed for highly-parallel systems, to avoid having a single location (single thread, or single memory region) responsible for sharing out the work. In order to avoid this bottleneck, I think it does introduce inefficiencies in simple cases.
If your application is not so parallel that a single point of work distribution causes scalability problems, then I would expect you could get better performance by managing it explicitly as you suggest.
No idea what you might google for though, I'm afraid.
Some issues... if a busy thread is busy, wouldn't you want it spending its time processing real work instead of speculatively looking for idle threads to offload onto?
How does your thread decide when it has so much work that it should stop doing that work to look for a friend that will help?
How do you know that the other threads don't have just as much work and you won't be able to find a suitable thread to offload onto?
Work stealing seems more elegant, because solves the same problem (contention) in a way that guarantees that the threads doing the load balancing are only doing the load balancing while they otherwise would have been idle.
It's my gut feeling that what you've described will not only be much less efficient in the long run, but will require lots of of tweaking per-system to get acceptable results.
Though in your edit you suggest that you want submitting processor to handle this, not the worker threads as you suggested earlier and in some of the comments here. If the submitting processor is searching for the lowest queue length, you're potentially adding latency to the submit, which isn't really a desirable thing.
But more importantly it's a supplementary technique to work-stealing, not a mutually exclusive technique. You've potentially alleviated some of the contention that work-stealing was invented to control, but you still have a number of things to tweak before you'll get good results, these tweaks won't be the same for every system, and you still risk running into situations where work-stealing would help you.
I think your edited suggestion, with the submission thread doing "smart" work distribution is potentially a premature optimization against work-stealing. Are your idle threads slamming the bus so hard that your non-idle threads can't get any work done? Then comes the time to optimize work-stealing.
So, by contrast to "Work Stealing", what is really meant here by "Work Shrugging", is a normal upfront work scheduling strategy that is smart about processor, cache & memory loyalty, and scalable.
Searching on combinations of the terms / jargon above yields many substantial references to follow up. Some address the added complication of machine virtualisation, which wasn't infact a concern of the questioner, but the general strategies are still relevent.