I'm curious about using sync or async(event based or pub/sub) approach in my microservice.
i have a python backend service that was written in rest and almost all my endpoints have one small dependency to make request to another microservice.
service 1 -> makes rest api get request -> service 2 (returns some data)
service uses that data as a filter and makes a request to its corresponding database, then return data to the client.
in my case, i think using async communication is not an option... since i need this data immediately before i send a request to db and send it back to the user. That's why i am using rest to communicate with my second service. However, i was reading some articles and it seems like people suggest using async or event based communication for similar use cases. I was always under the impression that event based or async approach might be more ideal if I have a request that i can fire and forget about it..(more like a background process) Just wanted to ask if it's a good place for me to explore event based more for my particular use case or i should stick with rest?
Note:it was recommended as an ideal solution in the book( Microservices by Sam Newman). These two services who need response from each other and cannot just fire these requests and forget about it are using event based or async approach- i guess kind of similar to my case
It is not about sync vs async. It is about resiliency.
You need queues or some other form of persistence if you need to ensure that the request is not going to be lost in case of process crashes and other types of failures. In the diagram, you included it is not OK to lose reservations.
Think about your use case. Is it OK to lose the request if service one crashes while service 2 processes it? If it is OK and the request can be retried by the caller then stick with your current design.
Related
I'm designing a system that uses a microservices architecture with event-based communication (using Google Cloud Pub/Sub).
Each of the services is listening and publishing messages so between the services everything is excellent.
On top of that, I want to provide a REST API that users can use without breaking the event-based approach. However, if I have an endpoint that triggers event X, how will I send the response to the user? Does it make sense to create a subscriber for a "ProcessXComplete" event and than return 200 OK?
For example:
I have the following microservices:
Service A
Service B
Frontend Service - REST Endpoints
I'm want to send this request "POST /posts" - this request sent to the frontend service.
The frontend service should trigger "NewPostEvent."
Both Service A and Service B will listen to this event and do something.
So far, so good, but here is where things are starting to get messy for me.
Now I want to return the user that made the request a valid response that the operation completed.
How can I know that all services finished their tasks, and how to create the handler to return this response?
Does it even make sense to go this way or is there a better design to implement both event-based communications between services and providing a REST API
What you're describing is absolutely one of the challenges of event-based programming and how eventual-consistency (and lack of atomicity) coordinates with essentially synchronous UI/UX.
It generally does make sense to have an EventXComplete event. Our microservices publish events on completion of anything that could potentially fail. So, there are lots of ServiceA.EventXSuccess events flowing through the queues. I'm not familiar with Google Cloud PubSub specifically, but in general in Messaging systems there is little extra cost to publishing messages with few (or no) subscribers to require compute power. So, we tend to over-articulate service status by default; it's easy to come back later and tone down messaging as needed. In fact, some of our newer services have Messaging Verbosity configurable via an Admin API.
The Frontend Service (which here is probably considered a Gateway Service or Facade Layer) has taken on the responsibility of being a responsive backing for your UI, so it needs to, in fact, BE responsive. In this example, I'd expect it to persist the User's POST request, return a 200 response and then update its local copy of the request based on events it's subscribed to from ServiceA and ServiceB. It also needs to provide a mechanism (events, email, webhook, gRPC, etc.) to communicate from the Frontend Service back to any UI if failure happens (maybe even if success happens). Which communication you use depends on how important and time-sensitive the notification is. A good example of this is getting an email from Amazon saying billing has failed on an Order you placed. They let you know via email within a few minutes, but they don't make you wait for the ExecuteOrderBilling message to get processed in the UI.
Connecting Microservices to the UI has been one of the most challenging aspects of our particular journey; avoiding tight coupling of models/data structures, UI workflows that are independent of microservice process flows, and perhaps the toughest one for us: authorization. These are the hidden dark-sides of this distributed architecture pattern, but they too can be overcome. Some experimentation with your particular system is likely required.
It really depends on your business case. If the REST svc is dropping message in message queue , then after dropping the message we simply return the reference ID that client can poll to check the progress.
E.g. flight search where your system has to calls 100s of backend services to show you flight deals . Search api will drop the message in the queue and save the same in the database with some reference ID and you return same id to client. Once worker are done with the message they will update the reference in DB with results and meanwhile your client will be polling (or web sockets preferably) to update the UI with results.
The idea is you can't block the request and keep everything async , this will make system scaleable.
Currently we are implementing REST API's using the spring-boot. Since our API's are growing in number we are thinking of a solution to implement the REST API's using a different approach.
The approach is as below :
Expose a single service to receive all the HTTP requests.
We will have the URI's configured in a data base table to call the
next set of services. These service are configured to listen to
particular JMS messages.
The next set of services will receive the JMS messages and process
the data.
Below are my questions :
Will the above approach still represent the REST architecture ?
What are the downsides of above approach(we are aware of network
latency) any thing other then network latency ?
What are the REST architecture benefits will we be missing.
Or can we just say that our approach is the REST architecture done differently ?
You're making 2 major choices, each can be decided separately:
1) Having a single HTTP service
2) Using JMS as the communication between this service and the underlying microservices
Regarding #1, if you do this, you can no longer call your services REST since the whole point of REST is to use HTTP verbs together with your domain objects for a predicable set of endpoints. GET on /objects/ means the object is being fetched, POST on /objects means a new object is being created, etc... Now, this is OK, you can do it this way and it can work, though it will be "non-standard".
In fact, you might want to check out GraphQL https://www.howtographql.com/basics/1-graphql-is-the-better-rest/ as its pretty close to what you're trying to do.
These days really either REST or GraphQL seems to be the two popular approaches.
Another way to do REST, if you're looking to simply expose REST services on your domain objects without having to write a lot of code, is Spring Data REST: https://spring.io/projects/spring-data-rest and if you're comfortable with Spring already, this should be pretty easy to understand.
For #2, your choice of communication between your single gateway service and the underlying services. Do most of your calls require synchronous answers, such as a UI asking for data to display in a browser or phone? If so, JMS is not a good approach. JMS would be an ok approach if the majority of your services were asyncronous - for example someone submitting a stock trade request. The UI would just need to know the request was submitted, but it will actually be processed some time later and the result will be fetched asyncronously.
Without knowing much about your application, I would recommend sticking with HTTP between your services for simplicity sake unless there is a good reason to switch to JMS.
I know that messaging system is non blocking and scalable and should be used in microservices environment.
The use case that i am questioning is:
Imagine that there's an admin dashboard client responsible for sending API request to create an Item object. There is a microservice that provides API endpoint which uses a MySQL database where the Item should be stored. There is another microservice which uses elastic search for text searching purposes.
Should this admin dashboard client :
A. Send 2 API Calls; 1 Call to MySQL service and another elasticsearch service
or
B. Send message to topic to be consumed by both MySQL service and elasticsearch service?
What are the pros and cons when considering A or B?
I'm thinking that it's a little overkill when only 2 microservices are consuming this topic. Also, the frequency of which the admin is creating Item object is very small.
Like many things in software architecture, it depends. Your requirements, SLAs and business needs should make it clearer.
As you noted, messaging system is not blocking and much more scalable, but, API communication got it pluses as well.
In general, REST APIs are best suited to request/response interactions where the client application sends a request to the API backend over HTTP.
Message streaming is best suited for notifications when new data or events occur that you may want to take action upon.
In you specific case, I would go with a messaging system with is much more scalable and non-blocking.
Your A approach is coupling the "routing" logic into your application. Pretend you need to perform an API call to audit your requests, then you will need to change the code and add another call to your application logic. As you said, the approach is synchronous and unless you're not providing threading logic, your calls will be lined up and won't scale, ie, call mysql --> wait response, then call elastic search --> wait response, ...
In any case you can prefer this approach if you need immediate consistency, ie, the result call of one action feeding the second action.
The B approach is decoupling that routing logic, so, any other service interested in the event can subscribe to the topic and perform the action expected. Totally asynchronous and scalable. Here you will have eventual consistency and you have to recover any possible failure.
I have a service exposing a REST endpoint that, after a couple of transformations, calls a third-party service also via its REST endpoint.
I would like to implement some sort of throttling on my service to avoid being throttled by this third-party service. Note that my service's endpoint accepts only one request and not a list of them. I'm using Play and we also have Akka Streams as dependency.
My first though was to have my service saving the requests into a database table and then have an Akka Streams Source, leveraging the throttle function, picking tasks, applying the transformations and then calling the external service.
Is this a reasanoble approach or does it have any severe drawbacks?
Thanks!
Why save the requests to the database? Does the queue need to survive restarts and/or do you run a load-balanced setup that needs to somehow synchronize the requests?
If you don't need the above I'd think using only Source.queue to store the task data would work just as well?
And maybe you already thought of this: If you want to make your endpoint more resilient you should allow your API to send a 'sorry, busy' response and drop the request instead of queuing it if your queue grows beyond a certain size.
I am dealing with communication between microservices.
For example (fictive example, just for the illustration):
Microservice A - Store Users (getUser, etc.)
Microservice B - Store Orders (createOrder, etc.)
Now if I want to add new Order from the Client app, I need to know user address. So the request would be like this:
Client -> Microservice B (createOrder for userId 5) -> Microservice A (getUser with id 5)
The microservice B will create order with details (address) from the User Microservice.
PROBLEM TO SOLVE: How effectively deal with communication between microservice A and microservice B, as we have to wait until the response come back?
OPTIONS:
Use RestAPI,
Use AMQP, like RabbitMQ and deal with this issue via RPC. (https://www.rabbitmq.com/tutorials/tutorial-six-dotnet.html)
I don't know what will be better for the performance. Is call faster via RabbitMQ, or RestAPI? What is the best solution for microservice architecture?
In your case using direct REST calls should be fine.
Option 1 Use Rest API :
When you need synchronous communication. For example, your case. This option is suitable.
Option 2 Use AMQP :
When you need asynchronous communication. For example when your order service creates order you may want to notify product service to reduce the product quantity. Or you may want to nofity user service that order for user is successfully placed.
I highly recommend having a look at http://microservices.io/patterns/index.html
It all depends on your service's communication behaviour to choose between REST APIs and Event-Based design Or Both.
What you do is based on your requirement you can choose REST APIs where you see synchronous behaviour between services
and go with Event based design where you find services needs asynchronous behaviour, there is no harm combining both also.
Ideally for inter-process communication protocol it is better to go with messaging and for client-service REST APIs are best fitted.
Check the Communication style in microservices.io
REST based Architecture
Advantage
Request/Response is easy and best fitted when you need synchronous environments.
Simpler system since there in no intermediate broker
Promotes orchestration i.e Service can take action based on response of other service.
Drawback
Services needs to discover locations of service instances.
One to one Mapping between services.
Rest used HTTP which is general purpose protocol built on top of TCP/IP which adds enormous amount of overhead when using it to pass messages.
Event Driven Architecture
Advantage
Event-driven architectures are appealing to API developers because they function very well in asynchronous environments.
Loose coupling since it decouples services as on a event of once service multiple services can take action based on application requirement. it is easy to plug-in any new consumer to producer.
Improved availability since the message broker buffers messages until the consumer is able to process them.
Drawback
Additional complexity of message broker, which must be highly available
Debugging an event request is not that easy.
Personally I am not a fan of using a message broker for RPC. It adds unnecessary complexity and overhead.
How do you host your long-lived RabbitMQ consumer in your Users web service? If you make it some static singleton, in your web service how do you deal with scaling and concurrency? Or do you make it a stand-alone daemon process? Now you have two User applications instead of one. What happens if your Users consumer slows down, by the time it consumes the request message the Orders service context might have timed-out and sent another message or given up.
For RPC I would suggest simple HTTP.
There is a pattern involving a message broker that can avoid the need for a synchronous network call. The pattern is for services to consume events from other services and store that data locally in their own database. Then when the time comes when the Orders service needs a user record it can access it from its own database.
In your case, your Users app doesn't need to know anything about orders, but your Orders app needs to know some details about your users. So every time a user is added, modified, removed etc, the Users service emits an event (UserCreated, UserModified, UserRemoved). The Orders service can subscribe to those events and store only the data it needs, such as the user address.
The benefit is that is that at request time, your Orders service has one less synchronous dependency on another service. Testing the service is easier as you have fewer request time dependencies. There are also drawbacks however such as some latency between user record changes occuring and being received by the Orders app. Something to consider.
UPDATE
If you do go with RabbitMQ for RPC then remember to make use of the message TTL feature. If the client will timeout, then set the message expiration to that period. This will help avoid wasted work on the part of the consumer and avoid a queue getting backed up under load. One issue with RPC over a message broker is that once a queue fills up it can add long latencies that take a while to recover from. Setting your message expiration to your client timeout helps avoid that.
Regarding RabbitMQ for RPC. Normally we use a message broker for decoupling and durability. Seeing as RPC is a synchronous communication, that is, we are waiting for a response, then durability is not a consideration. That leaves us decoupling. The question is does that decoupling buy you anything over the decoupling you can do with HTTP via a gateway or Docker service names?