In the user scenario, for a running auction there can be many user bids which need to be handled in the order they arrive. In my tests natural option is to go with ServiceBus Queues with support FIFO properly.
Few Issues with this as I see is;
When there are lot of parallel auctions (Auction for itemA, B, C etc..), It's do not think it's feasible to create different queues per auction. But then pushing bids to a single queue will also have a bottle neck.
Topics does not guarantee FIFO. But according to this using SupportOrdering can work (yet to test).
I was wondering whether eventhub can be used to model this scenario? At the end of the day there should be a layer that publishes bids ASAP and there are couple of workers taking action on those bids in order (and forward them to other sub systems)
Has anyone out there tried to tackle similar use case? Our current bid performance baseline is like (less than 200 bids per second for the moment)
Event Hubs guarantees ordering of events when reading from a partition, though not reading events from different partitions. Assuming that you were sending events for a given auction to a single partition, your ordering needs would be satisfied.
The one additional thing that I'd like to mention is expectations of fairness in this kind of competitive scenario. An Event Hubs partition will preserve ordering with respect to the order in which they were received by the broker. That may not agree with the perceived order that users submit the bid due to network latency or transient failures that require retries.
Related
We're designing C# scheduled task (runs every few hours) that will run on AWS ECS instances that will grab batched transaction data for thousands of customers from an endpoint, modify the data then send it on to another web service. We will be maintaining the state of the last successful batch in a separate database (using some like created date of the transactions). We need the system to be scalable so as more customers are added we add additional ECS containers to process the data.
There are the options we're considering:
Each container only processes a specific subset of the data. As more customers are added more contains are added. We would need to maintain a logical separation of what contains are processing what customers data.
All the containers process all of the customers. We use some kind of locking flags on the database to let other processes know that the customers data is being processed.
Some other approach.
I think that option 2 is probably the best, but it adds a lot of complexity regarding the locking and unlocking of customers. Are there specific design patterns I could be pointed towards if that if the correct solution?
In both scenarios an important thing to consider is retries in case processing for a specific customer fails. One potential way to distribute jobs across a vast number of container with retries would be to use AWS SQS.
A single container would run periodically every few hours and be the job generator. It would create one SQS queued item for each customer that needs to be processed. In response to items appearing in the queue a number of "worker" containers would be spun up by ECS to consume items from the queue. This can be made to autoscale relative to the number of items in the queue to quickly spin up many containers that can work in parallel.
Each container would use its own high performance concurrent poller similar to this (https://www.npmjs.com/package/squiss) to start grabbing items from the queue and processing them. If a worker failed or crashed due to a bug then SQS will automatically redeliver and dropped queued items that worker had been working on to a different worker after they time out.
This approach would give you a great deal of flexibility, and would let you horizontally scale out the number of workers, while letting any of the workers process any jobs from the queue that it grabs. It would also ensure that every queued item gets processed at least once, and that none get dropped forever in case something crashes or goes wrong.
I am looking into ways to order list of messages from google cloud pub/sub. The documentation says:
Have a way to determine from all messages it has currently received whether or not there are messages it has not yet received that it needs to process first.
...is possible by using Cloud Monitoring to keep track of the pubsub.googleapis.com/subscription/oldest_unacked_message_age metric. A subscriber would temporarily put all messages in some persistent storage and ack the messages. It would periodically check the oldest unacked message age and check against the publish timestamps of the messages in storage. All messages published before the oldest unacked message are guaranteed to have been received, so those messages can be removed from persistent storage and processed in order.
I tested it locally and this approach seems to be working fine.
I have one gripe with it however, and this is not something easily testable by myself.
This solution relies on server-side assigned (by google) publish_time attribute. How does Google avoid the issues of skewed clocks?
If my producer publishes messages A and then immediately B, how can I be sure that A.publish_time < B.publish_time is true? Especially considering that the same documentation page mentions internal load-balancers in the architecture of the solution. Is Google Pub/Sub using atomic clocks to synchronize time on the very first machines which see messages and enrich those messages with the current time?
There is an implicit assumption in the recommended solution that the clocks on all the servers are synchronized. But the documentation never explains if that is true or how it is achieved so I feel a bit uneasy about the solution. Does it work under very high load?
Notice I am only interested in relative order of confirmed messages published after each other. If two messages are published simultaneously, I don't care about the order of them between each other. It can be A, B or B, A. I only want to make sure that if B is published after A is published, then I can sort them in that order on retrieval.
Is the aforementioned solution only "best-effort" or are there actual guarantees about this behavior?
There are two sides to ordered message delivery: establishing an order of messages on the publish side and having an established order of processing messages on the subscribe side. The document to which you refer is mostly concerned with the latter, particularly when it comes to using oldest_unacked_message_age. When using this method, one can know that if message A has a publish timestamp that is less than the publish timestamp for message B, then a subscriber will always process message A before processing message B. Essentially, once the order is established (via publish timestamps), it will be consistent. This works if it is okay for the Cloud Pub/Sub service itself to establish the ordering of messages.
Publish timestamps are not synchronized across servers and so if it is necessary for the order to be established by the publishers, it will be necessary for the publishers to provide a timestamp (or sequence number) as an attribute that is used for ordering in the subscriber (and synchronized across publishers). The subscriber would sort message by this user-provided timestamp instead of by the publish timestamp. The oldest_unacked_message_age will no longer be exact because it is tied to the publish timestamp. One could be more conservative and only consider messages ordered that are older than oldest_unacked_message_age minus some delta to account for this discrepancy.
Google Cloud Pub-sub does not guarantee order of events receive to consumers as they were produced. Reason behind that is Google Cloud Pub-sub also running on a cluster of nodes. The possibility is there an event B can reach the consumer before event A. To Ensure ordering you have to make changes on both producer and consumer to identify the order of events. Here is section from docs.
In the context of writing a Messenger chat bot in a cloud environment, I'm facing some concurrency issues.
Specifically, I would like to ensure that incoming messages from the same conversation are processed one after the other.
As a constraint, I'm processing the messages with workers in a Cloud environment (i.e the worker pool is of variable size and worker instances are potentially short-lived and may crash). Also, low latency is important.
So abstracting a little, my requirements are:
I have a stream of incoming messages
each of these messages has a 'topic key' (the conversation id)
the set of topics is not known ahead-of-time and is virtually infinite
I want to ensure that messages of the same topic are processed serially
on a cluster of potentially ephemeral workers
if possible, I would like reliability guarantees e.g making sure that each message is processed exactly once.
My questions are:
Is there a name for this concurrency scenario?.
Are there technologies (message brokers, coordination services, etc.) which implement this out of the box?
If not, what algorithms can I use to implement this on top of lower-level concurrency tools? (distributed locks, actors, queues, etc.)
I don't know of a widely-accepted name for the scenario, but a common strategy to solve that type of problem is to route your messages so that all messages with the same topic key end up at the same destination. A couple of technologies that will do this for you:
With Apache ActiveMQ, HornetQ, or Apache ActiveMQ Artemis, you could use your topic key as the JMSXGroupId to ensure all messages with the same topic key are processed in-order by the same consumer, with failover
With Apache Kafka, you could use your topic key as the partition key, which will also ensure all messages with the same topic key are processed in-order by the same consumer
Some message broker vendors refer to this requirement as Message Grouping, Sticky Sessions, or Sticky Message Load Balancing.
Another common strategy on messaging systems with weaker delivery/ordering guarantees (like Amazon SQS) is to simply include a sequence number in the message and leave it up to the destination to resequence and request redelivery of missing messages as needed.
I think you can fix this by using a queue and a set. What I can think of is sending every message object in queue and processing it as first in first out. But while adding it in queue add topic name in set and while taking it out for processing remove topic name from set.
So now if you have any topic in set then don't add another message object of same topic in queue.
I hope this will help you. All the best :)
So I have been trying to get my hands on Amazon's AWS since my company's whole infrastructure is based of it.
One component I have never been able to understand properly is the Queue Service, I have searched Google quite a bit but I haven't been able to get a satisfactory answer. I think a Cron job and Queue Service are quite similar somewhat, correct me if I am wrong.
So what exactly SQS does? As far as I understand, it stores simple messages to be used by other components in AWS to do tasks & you can send messages to do that.
In this question, Can someone explain to me what Amazon Web Services components are used in a normal web service?; the answer mentioned they used SQS to queue tasks they want performed asynchronously. Why not just give a message back to the user & do the processing later on? Why wait for SQS to do its stuff?
Also, let's just say I have a web app which allows user to schedule some daily tasks, how would SQS would fit in that?
No, cron and SQS are not similar. One (cron) schedules jobs while the other (SQS) stores messages. Queues are used to decouple message producers from message consumers. This is one way to architect for scale and reliability.
Let's say you've built a mobile voting app for a popular TV show and 5 to 25 million viewers are all voting at the same time (at the end of each performance). How are you going to handle that many votes in such a short space of time (say, 15 seconds)? You could build a significant web server tier and database back-end that could handle millions of messages per second but that would be expensive, you'd have to pre-provision for maximum expected workload, and it would not be resilient (for example to database failure or throttling). If few people voted then you're overpaying for infrastructure; if voting went crazy then votes could be lost.
A better solution would use some queuing mechanism that decoupled the voting apps from your service where the vote queue was highly scalable so it could happily absorb 10 messages/sec or 10 million messages/sec. Then you would have an application tier pulling messages from that queue as fast as possible to tally the votes.
One thing I would add to #jarmod's excellent and succinct answer is that the size of the messages does matter. For example in AWS, the maximum size is just 256 KB unless you use the Extended Client Library, which increases the max to 2 GB. But note that it uses S3 as a temporary storage.
In RabbitMQ the practical limit is around 100 KB. There is no hard-coded limit in RabbitMQ, but the system simply stalls more or less often. From personal experience, RabbitMQ can handle a steady stream of around 1 MB messages for about 1 - 2 hours non-stop, but then it will start to behave erratically, often becoming a zombie and you'll need to restart the process.
SQS is a great way to decouple services, especially when there is a lot of heavy-duty, batch-oriented processing required.
For example, let's say you have a service where people upload photos from their mobile devices. Once the photos are uploaded your service needs to do a bunch of processing of the photos, e.g. scaling them to different sizes, applying different filters, extracting metadata, etc.
One way to accomplish this would be to post a message to an SQS queue (or perhaps multiple messages to multiple queues, depending on how you architect it). The message(s) describe work that needs to be performed on the newly uploaded image file. Once the message has been written to SQS, your application can return a success to the user because you know that you have the image file and you have scheduled the processing.
In the background, you can have servers reading messages from SQS and performing the work specified in the messages. If one of those servers dies another one will pick up the message and perform the work. SQS guarantees that a message will be delivered eventually so you can be confident that the work will eventually get done.
I understand the concept of delay queue of Amazon SQS, but I wonder why it is useful.
What's the usage of SQS delay queue?
Thanks
One use case which i can think of is usage in distributed applications which have eventual consistency semantics. The system consuming the message may have an dependency like a co-relation identifier to be available and hence may need to wait for certain guaranteed duration of time before seeing the co-relation data. In this case, it makes sense for the message to be delayed for certain duration of time.
Like you I was confused as to a use-case for delay queues, until I stumbled across one in my own work. My application needs to have an internal queue with each item waiting at least one minute between each check for completion.
So instead of having to manage a "last-checked-time" on every object, I just shove the object's ID into an SQS queue messagewith a delay time of 60 seconds, and my main loop then becomes a simple long-poll against the queue.
A few off the top of my head:
Emails - Let's say you have a service that sends reminder emails triggered from queue messages. You'd have to delay enqueueing the message in that case.
Race conditions - Delivery delays can be used to overcome race conditions in distributed systems. For example, a service could insert a row into a table, and sends a message about its availability to other services. They can't use the new entry just yet, so you have to delay publishing the SQS message.
Handling retries - Sometimes if a message fails you want to retry with exponential backoffs. This requires re-enqueuing the message with longer delays.
I've built a suite of API's to make queue message scheduling easy. You can call our API's to schedule queue messages, cancel, edit, and check on the status of such messages. Think of it like a scheduler microservice.
www.schedulerapi.com
If you are looking for a solution, let me know. I've built these schedulers before at work for delivering emails at high scale, so I have experience with similar use cases.
One use-case can be:
Think of a time critical expression like a scheduled equity trade order.
If one of your system is fetching all the order scheduled in next 60 minutes and putting them in queue (which will be fetched by another sub system).
If you send these order directly, then they will be visible immediately to process in queue and will be processed depending upon their order.
But most likely, they will not execute in exact time (Hour:Minute:Seconds) in which Customer wanted and this will impact the outcome.
So to solve this, what first sub system will do, it will add delay seconds (difference between current and execution time) so message will only be visible after that much delay or at exact time when user wanted.