I'm fairly new to Akka and writing concurrent applications and I'm wondering what's a good way to implement an actor that would wait for a redis list and once an item becomes available it will process it, or send it to a different actor to process?
Would using the blocking function BRPOPLPUSH be better, or would a scheduler that will ask the actor to poll redis every second be a better way?
Also, on a normal system, how many of these actors can I spawn concurrently without consuming all the resource the system has to offer? How does one decide how many of each Actor type should an actor system be able to handle on the system its running on?
As a rule of thumb you should never block inside receive. Each actor should rely only on CPU and never wait, sleep or block on I/O. When these conditions are met you can create even millions of actors working concurrently. Each actor is suppose to have 600-650 bytes memory footprint (see: Concurrency, Scalability & Fault-tolerance 2.0 with Akka Actors & STM).
Back to your main question. Unfortunately there is no official Redis client "compatible" with Akka philosophy, that is, completely asynchronous. What you need is a client that instead of blocking will return you a Future object of some sort and allow you to register callback when results are available. There are such clients e.g. for Perl and node.js.
However I found fyrie-redis independent project which you might find useful. If you are bound to synchronous client, the best you can do is either:
poll Redis periodically without blocking and inform some actor by sending a message to with a Redis reply or
block inside an actor and understand the consequences
See also
Redis client library recommendations for use from Scala
BRPOPLPUSH with block for long time (up to the timeout you specify), so I would favour a Scheduler instead which still blocks, but for a shorter amount of time every second or so.
Whichever way you go, because you are blocking, you should read this section of the Akka docs which describes methods for working with blocking libraries.
Do you you have control over the code that is inserting the item into redis? If so you could get that code to send your akka code a message (maybe over ActiveMQ using the akka camel support) to notify it when the item has been inserted into redis. This will be a more event driven way of working and prevent you from having to poll, or block for super long periods of time.
Related
We have a bus reservation system running in GKE in which we are handling the creation of such reservations with different threads. Due to that, CRUD java methods can sometimes run simultaneously referring to the same bus, resulting in the save in our DB of the LAST simultaneous update only (so the other simultaneous updates are lost).
Even if the probabilities are low (the simultaneous updates need to be really close, 1-2 seconds), we need to avoid this. My question is about how to address the solution:
Lock the bus object and return error to the other simultaneous requests
In-memory map or Redis caché to track the bus requests
Use GCP Pub/Sub, Kafka or RabbitMQ as a queue system.
Try to focus the efforts on reducing the simultaneous time window (reduce from 1-2 seconds up to milliseconds)
Others?
Also, we are worried if in the future the GKE requests handling scalability may be an issue. If we manage a relatively higher number of buses, should we need to implement a queue system between the client and the server? Or GKE load balancer & ambassador will already manages it for us? In case we need a queue system in the future, could it be used also for the collision problem we are facing now?
Last, the reservation requests from the client often takes a while. Therefore, we are changing the requests to be handled asynchronously with a long polling approach from the client to know the task status. Could we link this solution to the current problem? For example, using the Redis caché or the queue system to know the task status? Or should we try to keep the requests synchronous and focus on reducing the processing time (it may be quite difficult).
PROBLEM
Our PROCESSING SERVICE is serving UI, API, and internal clients and listening for commands from Kafka.
Few API clients might create a lot of generation tasks (one task is N messages) in a short time. With Kafka, we can't control commands distribution, because each command comes to the partition which is consumed by one processing instance (aka worker). Thus, UI requests could be waiting too long while API requests are processing.
In an ideal implementation, we should handle all tasks evenly, regardless of its size. The capacity of the processing service is distributed among all active tasks. And even if the cluster is heavily loaded, we always understand that the new task that has arrived will be able to start processing almost immediately, at least before the processing of all other tasks ends.
SOLUTION
Instead, we want an architecture that looks more like the following diagram, where we have separate queues per combination of customer and endpoint. This architecture gives us much better isolation, as well as the ability to dynamically adjust throughput on a per-customer basis.
On the side of the producer
the task comes from the client
immediately create a queue for this task
send all messages to this queue
On the side of the consumer
in one process, you constantly update the list of queues
in other processes, you follow this list and consume for example 1 message from each queue
scale consumers
QUESTION
Is there any common solution to such a problem? Using RabbitMQ or any other tooling. Нistorically, we use Kafka on the project, so if there is any approach using - it is amazing, but we can use any technology for the solution.
Why not use spark to execute the messages within the task? What I'm thinking is that each worker creates a spark context that then parallelizes the messages. The function that is mapped can be based on which kafka topic the user is consuming. I suspect however your queues might have tasks that contained a mixture of messages, UI, API calls, etc. This will result in a more complex mapping function. If you're not using a standalone cluster and are using YARN or something similar you can change the queueing method that the spark master is using.
As I understood the problem, you want to create request isolation from the customer using dynamically allocated queues which will allow each customer tasks to be executed independently. The problem looks like similar to Head of line blocking issue in networking
The dynamically allocating queues is difficult. This can also lead to explosion of number of queues that can be a burden to the infrastructure. Also, some queues could be empty or very less load. RabbitMQ won't help here, it is a queue with different protocol than kafka.
One alternative is to use custom partitioner in kafka that can look at the partition load and based on that load balance the tasks. This works if the tasks are independent in nature and there is no state store maintains in the worker.
The other alternative would be to load balance at the customer level. In this case you select a dedicated set of predefined queues for a set of customers. Customers with certain Ids will be getting served by a set of queues. The downside of this is some queues can have less load than others. This solution is similar to Virtual Output Queuing in networking,
My understanding is that the partitioning of the messages it's not ensuring a evenly load-balance. I think that you should avoid create overengineering and so some custom stuff that will come on top of the Kafka partitioner and instead think at a good partitioning key that will allows you to use Kafka in an efficiently manner.
This may appear as a silly question, but I am really confused about the terminology of the ZeroMQ regarding synchronous sockets like REQ and REP.
By my understanding a synchronous communication occurs when a client sends a message an then it blocks, until the response arrives. If ZeroMQ implemented a synchronous communication then only a .send() method would be enough for a synchronous socket.
I think that synchronous sockets terminology of ZeroMQ refers only to the inability of sending more messages until the response of the last message arrives, but the "sender" can still continue its processing ( doing more stuff ) asynchronously.
Is this true?
In that case, is there any straightforward way to implement a synchronous communication using ZeroMQ?
EDIT: Synchronous communication makes sense when I want to invoke a method in a remote process (like RPC). If I want to execute a series of commands in a remote process and each command needs the result of the previous one to do its job then asynchronous communication is not the best option.
To use ZMQ for implementing a synchronous framework, you can very nearly do it using just ZMQ; you can set the high water mark to 1. Unfortunately that's not quite it; what you want is an out going queue length of 0. Even more unfortunately, setting the high water mark to 0 is interpretted by ZMQ as infinity...
So the only option is to implement a synchronous transfer protocol on top of ZMQ. That's not very difficult to do. The conversation between the two ends will be something like "can I send?", "yes you can send now", "ok here it is", "ok I have received it" (both ends return to caller) (or at least the programatic version of that). This sets up what is called an execution rendevous - both ends know that they both reached a certain point of execution.
Technically speaking what you're doing is taking ZeroMQ (Actor Model) and turning it into something more like Communicating Sequential Processes.
RPC
Having said all that, from your edit I think you might like to consider Cap'n Proto. This is a C++ serialisation technology that has a neat RPC trick. If the return from one RPC call is the input to another, you can chain those all together somehow in advance (see here).
Let's start with a first stepforget everything you know about sockets.
ZeroMQ is more a concept of thinking about distributed-systems ( multi-agent like ) and how to design a software, with a use of such a smart signalling / messaging framework.
This is the core aim of the ZeroMQ, to allow designers remain thinking in the application domain and let all the low level dirty work to be operated actually without much of the designers' need to care of.
If have just recently started with ZeroMQ, one may enjoy a short read about a ZeroMQ global view first, before discussing details.
Having read and understood the concept of the ZeroMQ hierarchy, it is way simpler to start on details:
given a local Context() instance is a data-pumping engine and having a REQ/REP Scalable Formal Communications Archetype pattern in mind, the story is now actually a story about a network of distributed-Finite-State-Automata.
local process, operating just one side of the distributed REQ/REP communication archetype has zero power to influence the remote process to receive or not the message that was passed from the local process over to the ZeroMQ delivery services towards the indended recipient(s) in a fair belief. The less the local process can influence the remote process' intent to respond at all or not, so welcome to the realms of distributed multi-agent games.
Both the REQ and the REP formal behaviour has to meet its both the { local | distributed-mode }-expected sort of behaviour -- REQ asks first, REP answers then, so as to keep the contracted promise. The point is, that this behaviour is distributed and split among a pair of nodes, plus there are cases, when network incidents may throw the distributed-FSA into an unsalvageable mutual deadlock ( one may find more posts on this here zeromq quite often ).
So, your local-side REQ code imperatively .send()-s and has no obligation to stop without doing anything reasonable until REP-side .recv( zmq.NOBLOCK )-s or not ( no one has any kind of warranty a remote node exists at all, similarly, one has to set oneselves ready to anticipate and handle all cases, where a remote side will never respond, so many "new" challenges appear from the nature of a distributed multi-agent ecosystem ).
There are smart ways to handle this new breed of distributed chaos and uncertainties, using, best using .poll() and non-blocking forms of either the .send() and .recv()-methods, as these let user-code to remain capable of handling all expected and un-expected events in due time and fashion.
One may also operate rather many co-existent ZeroMQ connections, so as to prioritise and specialise each and any form of the multi-agents' interactions in a distributed system design, even for designing in fault-resilience and similar high-level robustness concept, where asynchronous nature of each of the interactions avoids a need of any sort of coordination or synchronisation with a remote ( possibly even not yet present ) agent, which is principally an autonomous entity, having it's own domain of control, so again, being principally asynchronous to what local-side agent might "expect", the less "influence" in any other form but by an attempt to send "there" a message "telegram".
So yes,ZeroMQ is asynchronous brokerless signalling / messaging framework.
For (almost) synchronous communications, one may take steps and measures to trim down the ( principally distributed ) asynchronous control loops -- best update your post with an MCVE example and details about what are your particular goals for being achieved.
I want the speed of asynchronous messages but still have some flow control. How can I accomplish this in Erlang?
There is no process memory limit right now -- it is discussed on mailing list etc. You can look at those threads.
On the up side, when you use OTP patterns implementation like gen_server you have a lot of freedom in retrieving messages from process queue and measuring the length of the queue.
gen_server2 used in rabbitmq used to optimize that by moving messages to internal data structure.
Having that you can discard any new incoming message when internal queue is too long.
You can do it silently or notify sender that the message rejected.
All of that is on very low level.
RabbitMQ will provide this functionality on AMQP level.
A common and quite good way of enforcing flow control is to make well selected messages into calls which limits how much load each client can load the server to one, effectively providing force feed back in an extremely simple way. The trick is of course to pick which communications uses synchronous calls :-)
Suppose we were to implement a network application, such as a chat with a central server and several clients: we assume that all communication must go through the central server, then it should pick up messages from some clients and forward them to target clients, and so on.
Regardless of the technology used (sockets, web services, etc..), it is possible to think that there are some producer threads (that generate messages) and some consumer threads (that read messages).
For example, you could use a single queue for incoming and outgoing messages, but using a single queue, you couldn't receive and send messages simultaneously, because only one thread at a time can access the queue.
Perhaps it would be more appropriate to use two queues: for example, this article explains a way in which you can manage a double queue so that producers and consumers can work almost simultaneously. This scenario may be fine if there are only a producer and a consumer, but if there are many clients:
How to make so that the central server can receive data simultaneously from multiple input streams?
How to make so that the central server can send data simultaneously to multiple output streams?
To resolve this problem, my idea is to use a double queue for each client: on the central server, each client connection may be associated with two queues, one for incoming messages from that client and one for outgoing messages addressed to that client. In this way the central server may send and receive data simultaneously on almost all the connections with the clients...
There are probably other ways to manage the queues ... What are the parameters to determine how many queues are needed and how to organize them? There are cases that do not need any queue?
To me, this idea of using a queue per client or multiple queues per client seems to miss the point. First of all, it is absolutely possible to build a queue which can be accessed simultaneously by 2 threads (one can be enqueueing an item while a different one is dequeueing another item). If you want to know how, post a specific question about that.
Second, even if we assume that only 1 thread at a time can access a single queue, and even if we assume that the server will be receiving or sending data to/from all the clients simultaneously, it still doesn't follow that you need a different queue for each client. To avoid limiting system performance, you just need to allow enough concurrency to utilize all the server's CPUs. Even with a single, system-wide queue, if dequeueing/enqueueing messages is fast enough compared to the other work the server is doing, it might not be a bottleneck. (And with an efficient implementation, simply inserting an item or removing an item from a queue should be very fast. It's a very simple operation.) For that message queue to become the bottleneck limiting performance, either you would need a LOT of CPUs, or everything else the server was doing would have to be very fast. In that case, you could work out some scheme with 2 or 4 system-wide queues, to allow 2x or 4x more concurrency.
The whole idea of using work queues in a multi-threaded system is that they 1) allow multiple consumers to all grab work from a single location, so producers can "dump" whatever work they need done at that single location without worrying about which consumer will do it, and 2) function as a load-balancing mechanism for the consumers. (Additionally, a work queue can act as a "buffer" if producers temporarily generate work too fast for the consumers.) If you have a dedicated pair of producer-consumer threads for each client, it calls into question why you need to use queues at all. Why not just do a synchronous "pass off" from dedicated producer to corresponding dedicated consumer? Or, why not use a single thread per client which acts as both producer and consumer? Using queues in the way which you are proposing doesn't seem to really gain anything.