I’m new to proto.actor/actor programming and I’m wondering is this possible to achieve this behavior:
Actor A is asking actor B via async command – he should await for response to achieve request/response model but using tasks.
Actor B is using HTTP request so it would be some async IO operation so I don’t want it to be blocked for other actors in this time, so when 10 actors will ask him in the same time each request will be queued but while first request is waiting for process second should get a chance to proceed. Once firs request will be finished it should have priority in queue and get response to actor A.
How to get this flow?
For example I have 3 clients that ask service for some data, service call is taking 5 seconds and most of this time service is spending in IO. With current implementation we have 15 second in total for all requests but I would like it to take ~5-6 second
public static class ProtoTest
{
public static PID Service;
public static async Task Start()
{
var context = new RootContext();
var props = Props.FromProducer(() => new ClientActor());
var serviceProps = Props.FromProducer(() => new ServiceActor());
Service = context.Spawn(serviceProps);
var jobs = new List<Task>();
for (int i = 0; i < 3; i++)
{
string actorName = $"Actor_{i}";
jobs.Add(Task.Run(() =>
{
var client = context.SpawnNamed(props, actorName);
context.Send(client, new Command());
}));
}
Console.ReadLine();
}
}
public class ClientActor : IActor
{
public virtual async Task ReceiveAsync(IContext context)
{
if (context.Message is Command)
{
Console.WriteLine($"{DateTime.Now.ToLongTimeString()} START processing by {context.Self.Id}");
var result = await context.RequestAsync<string>(ProtoTest.Service, new Query());
Console.WriteLine($"{DateTime.Now.ToLongTimeString()} End processing by {context.Self.Id}");
}
return;
}
}
public class ServiceActor : IActor
{
public async virtual Task ReceiveAsync(IContext context)
{
if (context.Message is Query)
{
// this operation is taking long time so actor could handle others in this time
await Task.Delay(5000);
context.Respond("result");
}
return;
}
}
One of the core principles of an actor is that it does not perform multiple operations in parallel. If I understand your problem correctly, what you can do instead is to create a new actor for each operation that you want to run in parallel (actors are cheap so creating many is not an issue). So if actor A needs to send N commands to be processed asynchronously and receive each result as they come in, it could spawn N actors, B1,B2...Bn (one for each command) and send a Request to each of them. The B actors await the result and then Respond back to the A actor. Each response would then be sent as a message to actor A's mailbox and be processed sequentially in the order they complete.
Related
I'm using vertx-4.2.6 to build a proxy service which takes requests from clients (for ex: browser, standalone apps etc), invoke a single thirdparty server, gets the response and send the same response back to client who initiated the request.
In this process, I'm using shared Webclient across multiple requests, i'm getting response from thirdparty quickly (mostly in milli seconds) but sometimes the response is not returned back to client and stucks at ctx.end(response).
Whenever i restart my proxy server, it serves requests sometimes without any issues but time goes on, lets say by EOD, for new requests client seeing 503 error -service unavailable I'm using one MainVerticle with 10 instances. I'm not using any worker threads.
Below is the pseudo code:
MainVerticle
DeploymentOptions depOptions = new DeploymentOptions();
depOptions.setConfig(config);
depOptions.setInstances(10);
vertx.deployVerticle(MainVerticle.class.getName(), depOptions);
.....
router.route("/api/v1/*")
.handler(new HttpRequestHandler(vertx));
HttpRequestHandler
public class HttpRequestHandler implements Handler<RoutingContext> {
private final Logger LOGGER = LogManager.getLogger( HttpRequestHandler.class );
private WebClient webClient;
public HttpRequestHandler(Vertx vertx) {
super(vertx);
this.webClient=createWebClient(vertx);
}
private WebClient createWebClient(Vertx vertx) {
WebClientOptions options=new WebClientOptions();
options.setConnectTimeout(30000);
WebClient webClient = WebClient.create(vertx,options);
return webClient;
}
#Override
public void handle(RoutingContext ctx) {
ctx.request().bodyHandler(bh -> {
ctx.request().headers().remove("Host");
StopWatch sw=StopWatch.createStarted();
LOGGER.info("invoking CL end point with the given request details...");
/*
* Invoking actual target
*/
webClient.request(ctx.request().method(),target_port,target_host, "someURL")
.timeout(5000)
.sendBuffer(bh)
.onSuccess(clResponse -> {
LOGGER.info("CL response statuscode: {}, headers: {}",clResponse.statusCode(),clResponse.headers());
LOGGER.trace("response body from CL: {}",clResponse.body());
sw.stop();
LOGGER.info("Timetaken: {}ms",sw.getTime()); //prints in milliseconds
LOGGER.info("sending response back to client...."); //stuck here
/*
* prepare the final response and return to client..
*/
ctx.response().setStatusCode(clResponse.statusCode());
ctx.response().headers().addAll(clResponse.headers());
if(clResponse.body()!=null) {
ctx.response().end(clResponse.body());
}else {
ctx.response().end();
}
LOGGER.info("response SENT back to client...!!"); //not getting this log for certain requests and gives 503 - service unavailable to clients after 5 seconds..
}).onFailure(err -> {
LOGGER.error("Failed while invoking CL server:",err);
sw.stop();
if(err.getCause() instanceof java.net.ConnectException) {
connectionRefused(ctx);
}else {
invalidResponse(ctx);
}
});
});
Im suspecting issue might be due to shared webclient. But i'm not sure. I'm new to Vertx and i'm not getting any clue what's going wrong. Please suggest if there are any options to be set on WebClientOptions to avoid this issue.
We have a non clustered vertx application, and we use the event bus to internally communicate between verticles.
Verticle A consumes from the bus, performs a HTTP request, and sends the response back through the bus.
Verticle B just request to perform that HTTP request.
The problem appears when a "high" request volume is performed by Verticle B. Then, the consumer starts receiving the events slower and slower (presumably because they are getting queued in the event bus). For 8 requests/second the bus takes up to 3-4 seconds to consume the event. When the requests/second are elevated, it can take more than 30 seconds to consume it, so the bus timeout is triggered.
The thing is, Verticle A is really fast performing the HTTP operation (~200ms) so I don't really understand why the requests get stuck in the bus.
We've tried many solutions but none ot then worked:
Deploy multiple instances of Verticle A as workers
Use vertx.executeBlocking() to perform the HTTP request
The only thing that worked was commenting the HTTP request and returning a mock object through the bus. But again, the HTTP request doesn't take more than 200ms, so it shouldn't be blocking the bus.
Additional information: We use an autogenerated rest client that uses Retrofit + OkHttpClient. Due to company policy, we cannot use Vertx WebClient, so I didn't try this solution.
EXAMPLE
This is a really simplified version of our code so you can check if I'm missing something.
VERTICLE A
// Instantiated in Verticle A
public class EmailSender {
private final Vertx vertx;
private final EmailApiClient emailApiClient;
public EmailSender(Vertx vertx) {
this.vertx = vertx;
emailApiClient = ClientFactory.createEmailApiClient();
}
public void start() {
vertx.eventBus().consumer("sendEmail", this::sendEmail);
}
public void sendEmail(Message<EmailRequest> message) {
EmailRequest emailRequest = message.body();
emailApiClient.sendEmail(emailRequest).subscribe(
response -> {
if (response.code() == 200) {
EmailResponse emailResponse = response.body();
message.reply(emailResponse);
} else {
message.fail(500, "Error sending email");
}
});
}
}
VERTICLE B
// Instantiated in Verticle B
public class EmailCommunications {
private final Vertx vertx;
public EmailCommunications(Vertx vertx) {
this.vertx = vertx;
}
public Single<EmailResponse> sendEmail(EmailRequest emailRequest) {
SingleSubject<EmailResponse> emailSent = SingleSubject.create();
vertx.eventBus().request(
"sendEmail",
emailRequest,
busResult -> {
if (busResult.succeded()) {
emailSent.onSuccess(busResult.result().body())
} else {
emailSent.onError(busResult.cause())
}
}
);
return emailSent;
}
}
We fixed the issue changing our OkHttpClient configuration so HTTP requests won't get stuck
default void configureOkHttpClient(OkHttpClient.Builder okHttpClientBuilder) {
ConnectionPool connectionPool = new ConnectionPool(40, 5, TimeUnit.MINUTES);
Dispatcher dispatcher = new Dispatcher();
dispatcher.setMaxRequestsPerHost(200);
dispatcher.setMaxRequests(200);
okHttpClientBuilder
.readTimeout(60, TimeUnit.SECONDS)
.retryOnConnectionFailure(true)
.connectionPool(connectionPool)
.dispatcher(dispatcher);
}
How can I process a list of delayed jobs in Vertx (actually
hundreds of HTTP GET requests, to limited API that bans fast requesting hosts)? now, I am using this code and it gets blocked because Vertx starts all requests at once. It is desirable to process each request with a 5-second delay between each request.
public void getInstrumnetDailyInfo(Instrument instrument,
Handler<AsyncResult<OptionInstrument>> handler) {
webClient
.get("/Loader")
.addQueryParam("i", instrument.getId())
.timeout(30000)
.send(
ar -> {
if (ar.succeeded()) {
String html = ar.result().bodyAsString();
Integer thatData = processHTML(html);
instrument.setThatData(thatData);
handler.handle(Future.succeededFuture(instrument));
} else {
// error
handler.handle(Future.failedFuture("error " +ar.cause()));
}
});
}
public void start(){
List<Instrument> instruments = loadInstrumentsList();
instruments.forEach(
instrument -> {
webClient.getInstrumnetDailyInfo(instrument,
async -> {
if(async.succeeded()){
instrumentMap.put(instrument.getId(), instrument);
}else {
log.warn("getInstrumnetDailyInfo: ", async.cause());
}
});
});
}
You can consider using a timer to fire events (rather than all at startup).
There are two variants in Vertx,
.setTimer() that fires a specific event after a delay
vertx.setTimer(interval, new Handler<T>() {});
and
2. .setPeriodic() that fires every time a specified period of time has passed.
vertx.setPeriodic(interval, new Handler<Long>() {});
setPeriodic seems to be what you are looking for.
You can get more info from the documentation
For more sophisticated Vertx scheduling use-cases, you can have a look at Chime or other schedulers or this module
You could use any out of the box rate limiter function and adapt it for async use.
An example with the RateLimiter from Guava:
// Make permits available at a rate of one every 5 seconds
private RateLimiter limiter = RateLimiter.create(1 / 5.0);
// A vert.x future that completes when it obtains a throttle permit
public Future<Double> throttle() {
return vertx.executeBlocking(p -> p.complete(limiter.acquire()), true);
}
Then...
throttle()
.compose(d -> {
System.out.printf("Waited %.2f before running job\n", d);
return runJob(); // runJob returns a Future result
});
I'm trying to use Vertx to implement a TCP server, accepting incoming connections and then handling different sockets. Since each socket can be handled independently, the handlers belonging to different sockets are supposed to run in different event loop threads concurrently.
According to Vert.x document,
Standard verticles are assigned an event loop thread when they are created and the start method is called with that event loop. When you call any other methods that takes a handler on a core API from an event loop then Vert.x will guarantee that those handlers, when called, will be executed on the same event loop.
I think, this code snippet can print different thread names:
Vertx vertx = Vertx.vertx(); // The number of event loop threads is 2*core.
vertx.createNetServer().connectHandler(socket -> {
vertx.deployVerticle(new AbstractVerticle() {
#Override
public void start() throws Exception {
socket.handler(buffer -> {
log.trace(socket.toString() + ": Socket Message");
socket.close();
});
}
});
}).listen(port);
But unfortunately, all handlers were located in the same thread.
23:59:42.359 [vert.x-eventloop-thread-1] TRACE Server - io.vertx.core.net.impl.NetSocketImpl#253fa4f2: Socket Message
23:59:42.364 [vert.x-eventloop-thread-1] TRACE Server - io.vertx.core.net.impl.NetSocketImpl#465f1533: Socket Message
23:59:42.365 [vert.x-eventloop-thread-1] TRACE Server - io.vertx.core.net.impl.NetSocketImpl#5ab8dac: Socket Message
23:59:42.366 [vert.x-eventloop-thread-1] TRACE Server - io.vertx.core.net.impl.NetSocketImpl#5fc72993: Socket Message
23:59:42.367 [vert.x-eventloop-thread-1] TRACE Server - io.vertx.core.net.impl.NetSocketImpl#38ee66d7: Socket Message
23:59:42.368 [vert.x-eventloop-thread-1] TRACE Server - io.vertx.core.net.impl.NetSocketImpl#6a60a74: Socket Message
23:59:42.369 [vert.x-eventloop-thread-1] TRACE Server - io.vertx.core.net.impl.NetSocketImpl#5f3921e1: Socket Message
23:59:42.370 [vert.x-eventloop-thread-1] TRACE Server - io.vertx.core.net.impl.NetSocketImpl#39d41024: Socket Message
... more than 100+ lines ...
An opposite example is similar to this echo server written in BOOST.ASIO. The handlers run in different event loop threads if a thread pool is used to execute io_service::run().
So, my question is how to run these handlers concurrently?
Actually, you do something entirely different from what you intend.
Each time you receive connection on your socket, you launch a new actor,
Simplest way to prove that:
Vertx vertx = Vertx.vertx(); // The number of event loop threads is 2*core.
vertx.createHttpServer().requestHandler(request -> {
vertx.deployVerticle(new AbstractVerticle() {
String uuid = UUID.randomUUID().toString(); // Some random unique number
#Override
public void start() throws Exception {
request.response().end(uuid + " " + Thread.currentThread().getName());
}
});
}).listen(8888);
vertx.setPeriodic(1000, r -> {
System.out.println(vertx.deploymentIDs().size()); // Print verticles count every second
});
I'm using httpServer just because it's easier to check in browser.
As wrong as it may be, you'll still see that you should receive different threads:
fe931b18-89cc-4c6a-9d6a-8565bb1f1c12 vert.x-eventloop-thread-9
277330da-4df8-4e91-bd8f-82c0f62156d0 vert.x-eventloop-thread-11
bbd3207c-80a4-41d8-9be5-b40727badc84 vert.x-eventloop-thread-13
Now to how you should do it:
// We create 10 workers
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
vertx.deployVerticle(new AbstractVerticle() {
#Override
public void start() {
vertx.eventBus().consumer("processMessage", (request) -> {
// Do something smart
// Reply
request.reply("I'm on thread " + Thread.currentThread().getName());
});
}
});
}
// This is your handler
vertx.createHttpServer().requestHandler(request -> {
// Only one server, that should dispatch events to workers as quickly as possible
vertx.eventBus().send("processMessage", null, (response) -> {
if (response.succeeded()) {
request.response().end("Request :" + response.result().body().toString());
}
// Handle errors
});
}).listen(8888);
vertx.setPeriodic(1000, r -> {
System.out.println(vertx.deploymentIDs().size()); // Notice that number of workers doesn't change
});
It's not possible to determine which event loop Vert.x will assign to each of your verticles without more details (number of cores of your test machines for example).
Anyway, it is not a good idea to deploy a verticle per incoming connection. Verticles are units of deployment in Vert.x. You would typically create one per "functionality".
Back to your use case, the purpose of event driven programming is precisely to avoid using a thread per connection. You can handle a lot of concurrent connections with a single event loop. If you have multiple cores on your machine then you can deploy multiple instances of your verticle to use them all (1 event loop per core).
int processors = Runtime.getRuntime().availableProcessors();
Vertx vertx = Vertx.vertx();
vertx.deployVerticle(TCPServerVerticle.class.getName(), new DeploymentOptions().setInstances(processors));
public class TCPServerVerticle extends AbstractVerticle {
#Override
public void start(Future<Void> startFuture) throws Exception {
vertx.createNetServer().connectHandler(socket -> {
socket.handler(buffer -> {
log.trace(socket.toString() + ": Socket Message");
socket.close();
});
}).listen(port, ar -> {
if (ar.succeeded()) {
startFuture.complete();
} else {
startFuture.fail(ar.cause());
}
});
}
}
With Vertx TCP server sharing the connect handlers will be called on a round-robin fashion.
I want to run periodic tasks in with a restriction that at most only one execution of a method is running at any given time.
I was experimenting with Rx, but I am not sure how to impose at most once concurrency restriction.
var timer = Observable.Interval(TimeSpan.FromMilliseconds(100));
timer.Subscribe(tick => DoSomething());
Additionally, if a task is still running, I want the subsequent schedule to elapse. i.e I don't want the tasks to queue up and cause problems.
I have 2 such tasks to execute periodically. The tasks being executed is currently synchronous. But, I could make them async if there is a necessity.
You are on the right track, you can use Select + Concat to flatten out the observable and limit the number of inflight requests (Note: if your task takes longer than the interval time, then they will start to stack up since they can't execute fast enough):
var source = Observable.Interval(TimeSpan.FromMilliseconds(100))
//I assume you are doing async work since you want to limit concurrency
.Select(_ => Observable.FromAsync(() => DoSomethingAsync()))
//This is equivalent to calling Merge(1)
.Concat();
source.Subscribe(/*Handle the result of each operation*/);
You should have tested your code as is because this is exactly what Rx imposes already.
Try this as a test:
void Main()
{
var timer = Observable.Interval(TimeSpan.FromMilliseconds(100));
using (timer.Do(x => Console.WriteLine("!")).Subscribe(tick => DoSomething()))
{
Console.ReadLine();
}
}
private void DoSomething()
{
Console.Write("<");
Console.Write(DateTime.Now.ToString("HH:mm:ss.fff"));
Thread.Sleep(1000);
Console.WriteLine(">");
}
When you run this you'll get this kind of output:
!
<16:54:57.111>
!
<16:54:58.112>
!
<16:54:59.113>
!
<16:55:00.113>
!
<16:55:01.114>
!
<16:55:02.115>
!
<16:55:03.116>
!
<16:55:04.117>
!
<16:55:05.118>
!
<16:55:06.119
It is already ensuring that there's no overlap.
Below are two implementations of a PeriodicSequentialExecution method, that creates an observable by executing an asynchronous method in a periodic fashion, enforcing a no-overlapping-execution policy. The interval between subsequent executions can be extended to prevent overlapping, in which case the period is time-shifted accordingly.
The first implementation is purely functional, while the second implementation is mostly imperative. Both implementations are functionally identical. The first one can be supplied with a custom IScheduler. The second one may be slightly more efficient.
The functional implementation:
/// <summary>
/// Creates an observable sequence containing the results of an asynchronous
/// action that is invoked periodically and sequentially (without overlapping).
/// </summary>
public static IObservable<T> PeriodicSequentialExecution<T>(
Func<CancellationToken, Task<T>> action,
TimeSpan dueTime, TimeSpan period,
CancellationToken cancellationToken = default,
IScheduler scheduler = null)
{
// Arguments validation omitted
scheduler ??= DefaultScheduler.Instance;
return Delay(dueTime) // Initial delay
.Concat(Observable.Using(() => CancellationTokenSource.CreateLinkedTokenSource(
cancellationToken), linkedCTS =>
// Execution loop
Observable.Publish( // Start a hot delay timer before each operation
Delay(period), hotTimer => Observable
.StartAsync(() => action(linkedCTS.Token)) // Start the operation
.Concat(hotTimer) // Await the delay timer
)
.Repeat()
.Finally(() => linkedCTS.Cancel()) // Unsubscription: cancel the operation
));
IObservable<T> Delay(TimeSpan delay)
=> Observable
.Timer(delay, scheduler)
.IgnoreElements()
.Select(_ => default(T))
.TakeUntil(Observable.Create<Unit>(o => cancellationToken.Register(() =>
o.OnError(new OperationCanceledException(cancellationToken)))));
}
The imperative implementation:
public static IObservable<T> PeriodicSequentialExecution2<T>(
Func<CancellationToken, Task<T>> action,
TimeSpan dueTime, TimeSpan period,
CancellationToken cancellationToken = default)
{
// Arguments validation omitted
return Observable.Create<T>(async (observer, ct) =>
{
using (var linkedCTS = CancellationTokenSource.CreateLinkedTokenSource(
ct, cancellationToken))
{
try
{
await Task.Delay(dueTime, linkedCTS.Token);
while (true)
{
var delayTask = Task.Delay(period, linkedCTS.Token);
var result = await action(linkedCTS.Token);
observer.OnNext(result);
await delayTask;
}
}
catch (Exception ex) { observer.OnError(ex); }
}
});
}
The cancellationToken parameter can be used for the graceful termination of the resulting observable sequence. This means that the sequence waits for the currently running operation to complete before terminating. If you prefer it to terminate instantaneously, potentially leaving work running unobserved in a fire-and-forget fashion, you can simply dispose the subscription to the observable sequence as always. Canceling the cancellationToken results to the observable sequence completing in a faulted state (OperationCanceledException).
Here is a factory function that does exactly what you are asking for.
public static IObservable<Unit> Periodic(TimeSpan timeSpan)
{
return Observable.Return(Unit.Default).Concat(Observable.Return(Unit.Default).Delay(timeSpan).Repeat());
}
Here is an example usage
Periodic(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(1))
.Subscribe(x =>
{
Console.WriteLine(DateTime.Now.ToString("mm:ss:fff"));
Thread.Sleep(500);
});
If you run this, each console print will be roughly 1.5 seconds apart.
Note, If you don't want the first tick to run immediately, you could instead use this factory, which won't send the first Unit until after the timespan.
public static IObservable<Unit> DelayedPeriodic(TimeSpan timeSpan)
{
return Observable.Return(Unit.Default).Delay(timeSpan).Repeat();
}