The goal is to have a shared EFS store used by multiple containers where each container knows what directory it needs and only one container at a time can write inside this directory. If multiple containers started with the same target directory only one should acquire the lock, others may fail or keep waiting.
The only requirement is that data in one directory is never modified by two containers.
Considerations:
NFS file locking is not applicable as the situation when an nfs client loses connectivity releasing the lock therefore allowing another process to write to the directory while still writing itself when nfs client restores the connection is possible.
Using consensus based key-value store to decide whether a directory is available for access. Requires reliable fencing in case a container declared dead comes back. Is it possible for disk writes?
Using fencing agent installed together with containers which kills containers if it detects connectivity issues. Are there reliable options here? How to deal with detection/kill lag?
Is there a reasonable way to solve this? Are there good alternatives (which don't involve redesigning the app)?
Related
We’re working to take our software to Azure cloud and looking at Orleans and Service Fabric (SF) as potential frameworks. We need to:
Populate our analysis engines with lots of data (e.g., 100MB to 2GB) per engine instance.
Maintain that state, and if an engine instance goes idle for say 20 minutes or more, we’d like to unload it (i.e., and not pay for the engine instance resource).
Each engine instance will support one to several end users with a specific data set.
Each engine instance can be highly interactive generating lots of plot data near realtime. We’re maintaining state as we don’t want to pay the price to populate engine instance for each engine interaction.
An engine instance action can take a few seconds, a few minutes, to even tens of minutes. We’ll want some feedback.
Users may access an engine instance every few seconds (e.g., to steer the engine towards a result based on feedback) and will want live plot data.
Each user will want to talk to a specific engine instance.
As a user expresses interest in running a simulation (i.e., standing up an engine instance), ideally we want him to choose small/medium/large computing resource to run his engine instance (i.e., based on the problem he’s trying to solve he may want more or less computing/memory power).
We’re considering Orleans and SF but we’re having difficulty specifying architecture based on above requirements. We’ve considered:
Trying to think about an SF partition, or an Orleans silo as an ‘engine instance’ described above.
Leveraging both Orleans and SF notion of fault tolerance through replication.
Leveraging local (i.e., to partition or silo) storage to store results and maintain state (i.e., for long periods or until idle for 20 minutes).
We’ve not understood how to:
Limit a silo or a partition to a single engine instance so that we can control resourcing of the engine instance.
Keep a user’s engine instance data separate from another users engine instance data.
Direct a request from a user (e.g., through a web API) to a particular engine instance.
Does this make sense for Orleans, does it make more sense for SF? Any pointers on how to implement the above would be helpful.
When you say SF I assume you mean SF Actors right?
You can use them the way you want, but in both cases does not look as the right solution for your problem, because:
Actors are single threaded, if you plan to share the same instance with multiple clients, each one would have to wait for the previous one to finish before it start processing anything. If you need to monitor the status of a running actor, you would have to make the actor publish the updates to external subscribers.
Actor state is isolated, so you can't access the state of other actors, the way to do it is provide a method to return it, but if the actor is running a command you have to wait the completion, unless you make a separate state service to hold the processed data.
You can't limit the resources required for a actor, in service fabric you specify the resources needed for a service, but you can't do it for actors, and you can't limit the resources they use, when they hit the limit, service fabric will try to balance the resources for your, but nothing prevent the process to consume more memory than requested.
Both actor services communicates using the ask approach, so they will "block" the caller waiting for an answer, it is asynchronous but you still have to keep the caller 'waiting'. (block and wait is because there is not an idea of fire and forget like Akka that uses the Tell approach, where it delivery the message and forget.)
Based on some of your requirements, I think a containers would be a better approach. Because:
You can limit the resource consumption for each container
The data is isolated inside the container and not visible to others
But on containers you have to manage the replication and partitioning by yourself, so in this case I would recommend the best of both worlds:
Create SF services to host the shared data sets between the the users
SF Service+Actor to only store the results of users simulations.
Containers to run the simulations and send updates to actors
This is just an example, it all will depend on your requirements, architecture and how data will be isolated from each other.
I'm trying to wrap my head around Zookeeper and what it does. To this point, my experience with Zookeeper has been through other libraries that require Zookeeper (Solr and Kafka) and so my basic understand is the very vague "you better use Zookeeper to keep your configuration straight".
So help me think through a simple example problem. Let's say that I build my own service that does "stuff". There are two things that I want to protect:
I want to have as little downtime as possible (gotta keep doing stuff).
I can not have more than one server doing stuff because bad things would happen.
So, how would I set this up in Zookeeper? Is Zookeeper responsible for starting another stuff server if one goes down? Or do I subscribe to a Zookeeper "stuff doer status" callback? If I erroneously start up two stuff servers, how does Zookeeper help me keep bad things from happening?
Zookeeper is a distributed lock manager. These systems provide features like coordinator election (aka "master election" or "leader election") for a distributed system, as well as provide a consistent, distributed access to small amounts of critical information which is frequently used for configuration (i.e., don't treat it like a database or a general file system).
Note that Zookeeper does not manage your service, but you can use Zookeeper to keep a hot standby (or several) such that in case of one master failing, another one will take over, so you would run N replicas of your servers, such that one of the working instances can take over immediately if the current leader goes down or becomes unavailable for any reason.
Using master election, you can choose to have two (or more) servers, but only one of them will be able to take the master lock, so only that one will be able to take action. As soon as it goes away, it will lose its claim to the lock, and your hot standby will pick up the lock and start doing work that you need it to do. Look at Zookeeper recipes for code samples. However, properly handing off work, checkpointing, and general service resilience is still up to you to design and implement.
That said, Zookeeper and similar systems provide a solid foundation to enable you to build robust distributed systems.
Other systems similar to Zookeeper include (alphabetically):
Chubby
doozerd
etcd
Several of these have detailed comparisons written up on their respective websites to show how they differ from the others in the list.
My application uses Postgresql 9.0 and is composed by one or more stations that interacts with a global database: it is like a common client server application but to avoid any additional hardware, all stations include both client and server: a main station is promoted to act also as server, and any other act as a client to it. This solution permits me to be scalable: a user may initially need a single station but it can decide to expand to more in future without a useless separate server in the initial phase.
I'm trying to avoid that if main station goes down all others stop working; to do it the best solution could be to continuously replicate the main database to unused database on one or more stations.
Searching I've found that pgpool can be used for my needs but from all examples and tutorial it seems that point of failure moves from main database to server that runs pgpool.
I read something about multiple pgpool and heartbeat tool but it isn't clear how to do it.
Considering my architecture, where doesn't exist separated and specialized servers, can someone give me some hints ? In case of failover it seems that pgpool do everything in automatic, can I consider that failover situation can be handled by a standard user without the intervention of an administrator ?
For these kind of applications I really like Amazon's Dynamo design. The document by the link is quite big, but it is worth reading. In fact, there're applications that already implement this approach:
mongoDB
Cassandra
Project Voldemort
Maybe others, but I'm not aware. Cassandra started within Facebook, Voldemort is the one used by LinkedIn. Making things distributed and adding redundancy into your data distribution you will step away from traditional Master-Slave replication approaches.
If you'd like to stay with PostgreSQL, it shouldn't be a big deal to implement such approach. You will need to implement an extra layer (a proxy), that will decide based on pre-configured options how to retrieve/save the data.
The proxying layer can be implemented in:
application (requires lot's of work IMHO);
database;
as a middleware.
You can use PL/Proxy on the middleware layer, project originated in Skype. It is deeply integrated into the PostgreSQL, so I'd say it is a combination of options 2 and 3. PL/Proxy will require you to use functions for all kind of queries against the database.
In case you will hit performance issues, PgBouncer can be used.
Last note: any way you decide to go, a known amount of development will be required.
EDIT:
It all depends on what you call “failure” and what you consider system being in an interrupted state.
Let's look on the pgpool features.
Connection Pooling PostgreSQL is using a single process (fork) per session. Obviously, if you have a very busy site, you'll hit the OS limit. To overcome this, connection poolers are used. They also allow you to use your resources evenly, so generally it's a good idea to have pooler before your database.In case of pgpool outage you'll face a big number of clients unable to reach your database. If you'll point them directly to the database, avoiding pooler, you'll face performance issues.
Replication All your queries will be auto-replicated to slave instances. This has meaning for the DML and DDL queries.In case of pgpool outage your replication will stop and slaves will not be able to catchup with master, as there's no change tracking done outside pgpool (as far as I know).
Load Balance Your read-only queries will be spread across several instances, achieving nice response times, allowing you to put more bandwidth on the system.In case of pgpool outage your queries will suddenly run much slower, if the system is capable of handling such a load. And this is in the case that master database will catchup instead of failed pgpool.
Limiting Exceeding Connections pgpool will queue connections in case they're not being able to process immediately.In case of pgpool outage all such connections will be aborted, which might brake the DB/Application protocol, i.e. Application was designed to never get connection aborts.
Parallel Query A single query is executed on several nodes to reduce response time.In case of pgpool outage such queries will not be possible, resulting in a longer processing.
If you're fine to face such conditions and you don't treat them as a failure, then pgpool can serve you well. And if 5 minutes of outage will cost your company several thousands $, then you should seek for a more solid solution.
The higher is the cost of the outage, the more fine tuned failover system should be.
Typically, it is not just single tool used to achieve failover automation.
In each failure you will have to tweak:
DNS, unless you want all clients' reconfiguration;
re-initialize backups and failover procedures;
make sure old master will not try to fight for it's role in case it comes back (STONITH);
in my experience we're people from DBA, SysAdmin, Architects and Operations departments who decide proper strategies.
Finally, in my view, pgpool is a good tool, I do use it. But it is not designed as a complete failover solution, not without extra thinking, measures taken, scripts written. Thus I've provided links to the distributed databases, they provide a much higher level of availability.
And PostgreSQL can be made distributed with a little effort due to it's great extensibility.
First of all, I'd recommend checking out pgBouncer rather than pgpool. Next, what level of scaling are you attempting to reach? You might just choose to run your connection pooler on all your client systems (bouncer is light enough for this to work).
That said, vyegorov's answer is probably the direction you should really be looking at in this day and age. Are you sure you really need a database?
EDIT
So, the rather obvious answer is that pgPool creates a single point of failure if you only have one box running it. The obvious solution is to run multiple poolers across multiple boxes. You then need to engineer your application code to handle database disconnections. This is not as easy at it sounds, but basically you need to use 2-phase commit for non-idempotent changes. So to the greatest extent possible you should make your changes idempotent.
Based on your comments, I'd guess that maybe you have limited experience dealing with database replication? pgPool does statement based replication. There are tradeoffs here. The benefit is that it's very easy to set up. The downside is that there is no guarantee that data on the replicated databases will be identical. It is also (I believe but haven't checked lately) not compatible with 2pc.
My prior comment asking if you really need a database was driven by my perception that you have designed a system without going into much detail around this part of it. I have about 2 decades experience working on "this part" of similar systems. I expect you will find that there are no out of the box solutions and that the issues involved get very complicated. In other words, I'm suggesting you re-consider your design.
Try reading this blog (with lots of information about PostgreSQL and PgPool-II):
https://www.itenlight.com/blog/2016/05/21/PostgreSQL+HA+with+pgpool-II+-+Part+5
Search for "WATCHDOG" on that same blog. With that you can configure a PgPool-II cluster. Two machines on the same subnet are required, though, and a virtual IP on the same subnet.
Hope that this is useful for anyone trying the same thing (even if this answer is a lot late).
PGPool certainly becomes a single point of failure, but it is a much smaller one than a Postgres instance.
Though I have not attempted it yet, it should be possible to have two machines with PGPool installed, but only running on one. You can then use Linux-HA to restart PGPool on the standby host if the primary becomes unavailable, and to optionally fail it back again when the primary comes back. You can at the same time use Linux-HA to move a single virtual IP over as well, so that your clients can connect to a single IP for their Postgres services.
Death of the postgres server will make PGPool send queries to the backup Postgres (promoting it to master if necessary).
Death of the PGPool server will cause a brief outage (configurable, but likely in the region of <1min) until PGPool starts up on the standby, the IP address is claimed, and a gratuitous ARP sent out. Of course, the client will have to be intelligent enough to reconnect without dying.
We're developing a server system in Scala + Akka for a game that will serve clients in Android, iPhone, and Second Life. There are parts of this server that need to be highly available, running on multiple machines. If one of those servers dies (of, say, hardware failure), the system needs to keep running. I think I want the clients to have a list of machines they will try to connect with, similar to how Cassandra works.
The multi-node examples I've seen so far with Akka seem to me to be centered around the idea of scalability, rather than high availability (at least with regard to hardware). The multi-node examples seem to always have a single point of failure. For example there are load balancers, but if I need to reboot one of the machines that have load balancers, my system will suffer some downtime.
Are there any examples that show this type of hardware fault tolerance for Akka? Or, do you have any thoughts on good ways to make this happen?
So far, the best answer I've been able to come up with is to study the Erlang OTP docs, meditate on them, and try to figure out how to put my system together using the building blocks available in Akka.
But if there are resources, examples, or ideas on how to share state between multiple machines in a way that if one of them goes down things keep running, I'd sure appreciate them, because I'm concerned I might be re-inventing the wheel here. Maybe there is a multi-node STM container that automatically keeps the shared state in sync across multiple nodes? Or maybe this is so easy to make that the documentation doesn't bother showing examples of how to do it, or perhaps I haven't been thorough enough in my research and experimentation yet. Any thoughts or ideas will be appreciated.
HA and load management is a very important aspect of scalability and is available as a part of the AkkaSource commercial offering.
If you're listing multiple potential hosts in your clients already, then those can effectively become load balancers.
You could offer a host suggestion service and recommends to the client which machine they should connect to (based on current load, or whatever), then the client can pin to that until the connection fails.
If the host suggestion service is not there, then the client can simply pick a random host from it internal list, trying them until it connects.
Ideally on first time start up, the client will connect to the host suggestion service and not only get directed to an appropriate host, but a list of other potential hosts as well. This list can routinely be updated every time the client connects.
If the host suggestion service is down on the clients first attempt (unlikely, but...) then you can pre-deploy a list of hosts in the client install so it can start immediately randomly selecting hosts from the very beginning if it has too.
Make sure that your list of hosts is actual host names, and not IPs, that give you more flexibility long term (i.e. you'll "always have" host1.example.com, host2.example.com... etc. even if you move infrastructure and change IPs).
You could take a look how RedDwarf and it's fork DimDwarf are built. They are both horizontally scalable crash-only game app servers and DimDwarf is partly written in Scala (new messaging functionality). Their approach and architecture should match your needs quite well :)
2 cents..
"how to share state between multiple machines in a way that if one of them goes down things keep running"
Don't share state between machines, instead partition state across machines. I don't know your domain so I don't know if this will work. But essentially if you assign certain aggregates ( in DDD terms ) to certain nodes, you can keep those aggregates in memory ( actor, agent, etc ) when they are being used. In order to do this you will need to use something like zookeeper to coordinate which nodes handle which aggregates. In the event of failure you can bring the aggregate up on a different node.
Further more, if you use an event sourcing model to build your aggregates, it becomes almost trivial to have real-time copies ( slaves ) of your aggregate on other nodes by those nodes listening for events and maintaining their own copies.
By using Akka, we get remoting between nodes almost for free. This means that which ever node handles a request that might need to interact with an Aggregate/Entity on another nodes can do so with RemoteActors.
What I have outlined here is very general but gives an approach to distributed fault-tolerance with Akka and ZooKeeper. It may or may not help. I hope it does.
All the best,
Andy
How do you reload an application's configuration? Or, what are good strategies for managing dynamic application configuration?
For example, let's say I had log levels and I wanted to change them at runtime. Also, let's assume this is one of many such options. Does it make sense to have a "configuration server" that holds configuration state for other parts of the application to query? Do people do that or did I just make it up?
I believe it's reasonable to keep all your configuration data in a repository (subversion, mercurial etc.) and have applications download it every time they start or attempt to reload some their configuration options. This is centralized approach — however you could have many configuration servers to avoid SPOF — and it:
allows you to keep track of changes so that you
know who put these and when (s)he did
that (none wants to be in charge of
unproper configuration);
enables you to use the same configuration for
all applications throughout you
network;
easiness of changes: you can just modify
configuration and notify concerned applications
using gen_server:abcast call or other means.
proplists(3) are useful when reading configuration.
If my understanding is correct, the problem is the following:
You want to create a distributed, scalable system and of course Erlang is the first choice that comes into mind, since it was designed for such purposes.
You will have several nodes that will be running local applications and also distributed applications as well.
Here the simplest hierarchy is to have a hot-standby backup for every major functionality.
This can be achieved by implementing a distributed application controller.
Simplest example is to have a server start on a node, while a slave server is started simultaneously on a mate node.
Distributed Application controllers have many advantages.
Easy example is to handle node_up messages differently by introducing new messages that indicate that a node is not only erlang VM ready, but all vital applications are running. This way the mate node can be sure that the stand-by node is ready and can start sync-ing.
Please elaborate or comment if I misunderstood something.
Good luck!