I want to implement active passive setup for multiple microservices in a distributed system. We use hazelcast as the messaging layer between our services. Would like to understand the best way to do this. Can we achieve it using zookeeper or does hazelcast natively support this ?
Hazelcast is distributed by nature. You only need to configure your data structures to be replicated.
Here's how you would configure a single backup for a map:
hazelcast:
map:
default:
backup-count: 1
Related
I'm working with Cassandra 3.x and Phantom driver (scala),
and modifying my Cassandra deployment from a simple, three nodes cluster to a multi datacenter Cassandra deployment that consists of two datacenters:
Transactional - the "main" datacenter, to which all reads/writes occur (except for reads/writes done by some analytics job).
Analytics - a datacenter used for analytics purposes only. The analytics job should operate (i.e. read/write to) on this datacenter.
Both datacenters are configured with the proper snitch and replication factor strategies.
Based on this article ("Workload Separation" section), I'm supposed to be able to read/write from the "Transactional" datacenter, and run analytics jobs on the "Analytics" datacenter however, I'm not sure how to get this to work with the phantom driver.
How can I configure the driver to read/write from the proper datacenter?
Will setting the hosts in ContactPoints class to nodes from the Transactional datacenter only do the trick?
By default, Java driver 3.x uses so-called DCAware load balancing policy combined with TokenAware policy. Data center could be configured explicitly by using withLocalDc function of builder, but it could be omitted and driver will use the datacenter of the first contact point that was reached at initialization. So you can just point Phantom only to servers in the transactional DC, and it will work only with it (until you're using non-local consistency levels, such as QUORUM/SERIAL, EACH_QUORUM, etc.)
I could not found any broadcast or pub/sub pattern between Reliable Services in any documentation. Did I miss anything?
My use case is , we need to notify custom event to all the SF stateful service replica in cluster if there any state change in any primary replica.
I am aware of Reliable state manager events which triggers when any change in Reliable collections.
Is there any other broadcast , pub/sub events to communicate between services replicas of the cluster ?
Thanks,
Ashish
Did you see this oss project and package? It allows pub/sub messaging between services.
Why reinvent the wheel?
Service Fabric does not contains a brokered messaging engine because:
There are lot's of options already in the market available for this.
Would make your system tight coupled with service fabric runtime.
Why not just use Service Bus Pub\Sub Topics?
If the concern is latency, why not run RabitMQ, ActiveMQ or any other messaging system as a guest executable service or maybe inside a container.
If you had this feature on SF, you would have to write your services dependent on this feature, once you start adding external dependencies, you gonna face an integration challenge to forward these events to systems outside your cluster, having to create a service listening to these events just to forward it to another queue\topic.
It will just add extra work, complexity and maintenance to your solution.
There are scenario where you want to run a cluster of microservices in High-Availability but you would like just one of them to execute a specific operation (consuming from a queue, polling a database)
What are the best practices with relation to this use case? Should one use Zookeeper as a registry, or are there other suitable technologies?
There are a couple of technologies for service registration and discovery. Please see if the following articles help:
StackShare's comparison of Consul vs. ZooKeeper vs. Eureka
A nice paper for service-discovery and guide on how to make the choice
Is it a good practice to setup Elasticsearch, logstash and kiban on 3 different servers, with each server having RAM of 8GB.
Or
Setup ELK on 1 single machine with higher memory of 16GB.
The machine needs to be highly available.
Can anyone suggest or share inputs
it depends on your task and situation. normally it is good practice to setup Elasticsearch, logstash and kiban on 3 different server. or if you data if more so you have to make a cluster of elastic search or may have more than one server of logstash .
filefeats will be on all the data(log) server .
there are an example of handling 25000 logs per secoung
https://engineering.viki.com/blog/2015/log-processing-at-scale-elk-cluster-at-25k-events-per-second/
Its slightly more complicated than explained here,
Any distributed component would try to offer features with sharded or partioned way. In a similar way the Elastic Search at ELK which is based out of Master Slave model and maintains the data at ES data nodes. This means one needs to set up a cluster of nodes for Elastic search itself for its various components such as ES Master, ES data and ES client.
The next level if the system is required at production grade which requires Multi master setup with minimum 3 master nodes.
This would be the beginning of ELK.
If one needs to run such a complex system in a limited resources, then Containerizing the ELK components and running them in a container orchestration framework is the recommended option. Kubernetes/Docker swarm are the options to run ELK cluster based on the dockerized instances of ELK. Again these orchestration frameworks also require multimaster setup , but that would be fair as one would have lot more components in a cloud environment and all of them could be controlled under these orchestration frameworks.
I have created a cluster consists of three RabbitMQ nodes using join_cluster command.
i.e.
rabbitmqctl –n rabbit2#MYPC1 join_cluster rabbit2#MYPC1
(currently the cluster runs on a single computer)
Questions:
In the documents it says there is one implemetation for active passive and one for active active.
What did I configure?
How do I know?
How can it be changed?
Is there a big performance trade off between Active Active & Active Passive?
What is the best practice to interact with active/active?
i.e. install a load balancer? apache that will round robin
What is the best practice to interact with active/passive?
if I interact with only the active - this is a single point f failure
Thanks.
I have been doing some research into availability options with RabbitMQ and while I am still fairly new, I'll attempt to answer your questions with the knowledge I do have. Please understand that these answers are not intended to be comprehensive.
Before getting to the questions and answers, I think it's worth pointing out that I think using the terms Active/Active and Active/Passive in the context of a cluster running on a single computer does not really apply. Active/Active and Active/Passive are typically terms used to describe highly available clusters where you have a system of more than one logical server (in your case, multiple RabbitMQ clusters), shared/redundant storage, network capabilities, power, etc.
What did I configure?
Without any load balancing for the nodes in your cluster or queue mirroring you have neither, meaning you do not have a highly available cluster.
How do I know?
RabbitMQ does not provide any connection management so traffic with a failed node will not automatically be passed on to a different node, which is required for an active/active cluster. Without queue mirroring you do not have fully redundant nodes in your cluster, which is required for active/passive.
How can it be changed?
Even if you implement load balancing and/or queue mirroring you are missing a number of requirements to offer a highly-available RabbitMQ cluster. Primarily, with a RabbitMQ cluster you only have a single logical broker (at least two are required for an HA cluster).
Is there a big performance trade off between Active Active & Active Passive?
I think you will start seeing performance penalties as you start introducing data replication and/or redundancy, which would affect both Active/Active and Active/Passive. If you are using synchronous data replication then you will see a bigger performance hit than if you replicate data asynchronously. There's a lot more to it, but to me this feels like there may be a bigger performance hit by using Active/Active but this depends heavily on how fast all of the pieces are working together. In Active/Passive where you may be using asynchronous replication across servers your performance may appear better but in a failover situation you would need to wait for that replication to complete before you can switch to your secondary server.
What is the best practice to interact with active/active? i.e. install a load balancer? apache that will round robin
RabbitMQ recommends using a load balancer so that you do not have to leak details about the nodes in your cluster to the clients.
What is the best practice to interact with active/passive? if I interact with only the active - this is a single point of failure
It is a point of failure but with Active/Passive you can implement a failure strategy to retry the next available server or all remaining servers. With these strategies in place you can establish a scenario where the capabilities of your cluster are merely degraded while a failover is happening instead of totally unavailable. Also, you can interact with the passive side but the types of interactions may be very different (i.e. read-only access) since there may be fewer resources available on the passive side and there may be delays in data replication.
Here are some references used to gather this information:
High-Availability Cluster on Wikipedia
Clustering with RabbitMQ
Highly Available Queues in a RabbitMQ Cluster
High Availability in RabbitMQ