I noticed that when using curl to get content from github using this format:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/${org}/${repo}/${branch}/path/to/file
It will sometimes return cached/stale content. For example with this sequence of operations:
curl https://raw.githubusercontent.com/${org}/${repo}/${branch}/path/to/file
Push a new commit to that branch
curl https://raw.githubusercontent.com/${org}/${repo}/${branch}/path/to/file
Step 3 will return the same content as step 1 and not reflect the new commit.
How can avoid getting a stale version?
I noticed on the Github WebUI, it adds a token to the url, eg: ?token=AABCIPALAGOZX5R which presumably avoids getting cached content. What's the nature of this token and how can I emulate this? Would tacking on ?token=$(date +%s) work?
Also I'm looking for a way to avoid the stale content without having to switch to a commit hash in the url, since it will require more changes. However, if that's the only way to achieve it, then I'll go that route.
GitHub caches this data because otherwise frequently requested files would involve serving a request to the backend service each time and this is more expensive than serving a cached copy. Using a CDN provides improved performance and speed. You cannot bypass it.
The token you're seeing in the URL is a temporary token that is issued for the logged-in user. You cannot use a random token, since that won't pass authentication.
If you need the version of that file in a specific commit, then you'll need to explicitly specify that commit. However, do be aware that you should not do this with some sort of large-scale automated process as a way to bypass caching. For example, you should not try to do this to always get the latest version of a file for the purposes of a program you're distributing or multiple instances of a service you're running. You should provide that data yourself, using a CDN if necessary. That way, you can decide for yourself when the cache needs to be expired and get both good performance and the very latest data.
If you run such a process anyway, you may cause an outage or overload, and your repository or account may be suspended or blocked.
Let's say we have a User, Wallet REST microservices and an API gateway that glues things together. When Bob registers on our website, our API gateway needs to create a user through the User microservice and a wallet through the Wallet microservice.
Now here are a few scenarios where things could go wrong:
User Bob creation fails: that's OK, we just return an error message to the Bob. We're using SQL transactions so no one ever saw Bob in the system. Everything's good :)
User Bob is created but before our Wallet can be created, our API gateway hard crashes. We now have a User with no wallet (inconsistent data).
User Bob is created and as we are creating the Wallet, the HTTP connection drops. The wallet creation might have succeeded or it might have not.
What solutions are available to prevent this kind of data inconsistency from happening? Are there patterns that allow transactions to span multiple REST requests? I've read the Wikipedia page on Two-phase commit which seems to touch on this issue but I'm not sure how to apply it in practice. This Atomic Distributed Transactions: a RESTful design paper also seems interesting although I haven't read it yet.
Alternatively, I know REST might just not be suited for this use case. Would perhaps the correct way to handle this situation to drop REST entirely and use a different communication protocol like a message queue system? Or should I enforce consistency in my application code (for example, by having a background job that detects inconsistencies and fixes them or by having a "state" attribute on my User model with "creating", "created" values, etc.)?
What doesn't make sense:
distributed transactions with REST services. REST services by definition are stateless, so they should not be participants in a transactional boundary that spans more than one service. Your user registration use case scenario makes sense, but the design with REST microservices to create User and Wallet data is not good.
What will give you headaches:
EJBs with distributed transactions. It's one of those things that work in theory but not in practice. Right now I'm trying to make a distributed transaction work for remote EJBs across JBoss EAP 6.3 instances. We've been talking to RedHat support for weeks, and it didn't work yet.
Two-phase commit solutions in general. I think the 2PC protocol is a great algorithm (many years ago I implemented it in C with RPC). It requires comprehensive fail recovery mechanisms, with retries, state repository, etc. All the complexity is hidden within the transaction framework (ex.: JBoss Arjuna). However, 2PC is not fail proof. There are situations the transaction simply can't complete. Then you need to identify and fix database inconsistencies manually. It may happen once in a million transactions if you're lucky, but it may happen once in every 100 transactions depending on your platform and scenario.
Sagas (Compensating transactions). There's the implementation overhead of creating the compensating operations, and the coordination mechanism to activate compensation at the end. But compensation is not fail proof either. You may still end up with inconsistencies (= some headache).
What's probably the best alternative:
Eventual consistency. Neither ACID-like distributed transactions nor compensating transactions are fail proof, and both may lead to inconsistencies. Eventual consistency is often better than "occasional inconsistency". There are different design solutions, such as:
You may create a more robust solution using asynchronous communication. In your scenario, when Bob registers, the API gateway could send a message to a NewUser queue, and right-away reply to the user saying "You'll receive an email to confirm the account creation." A queue consumer service could process the message, perform the database changes in a single transaction, and send the email to Bob to notify the account creation.
The User microservice creates the user record and a wallet record in the same database. In this case, the wallet store in the User microservice is a replica of the master wallet store only visible to the Wallet microservice. There's a data synchronization mechanism that is trigger-based or kicks in periodically to send data changes (e.g., new wallets) from the replica to the master, and vice-versa.
But what if you need synchronous responses?
Remodel the microservices. If the solution with the queue doesn't work because the service consumer needs a response right away, then I'd rather remodel the User and Wallet functionality to be collocated in the same service (or at least in the same VM to avoid distributed transactions). Yes, it's a step farther from microservices and closer to a monolith, but will save you from some headache.
This is a classic question I was asked during an interview recently How to call multiple web services and still preserve some kind of error handling in the middle of the task. Today, in high performance computing, we avoid two phase commits. I read a paper many years ago about what was called the "Starbuck model" for transactions: Think about the process of ordering, paying, preparing and receiving the coffee you order at Starbuck... I oversimplify things but a two phase commit model would suggest that the whole process would be a single wrapping transaction for all the steps involved until you receive your coffee. However, with this model, all employees would wait and stop working until you get your coffee. You see the picture ?
Instead, the "Starbuck model" is more productive by following the "best effort" model and compensating for errors in the process. First, they make sure that you pay! Then, there are message queues with your order attached to the cup. If something goes wrong in the process, like you did not get your coffee, it is not what you ordered, etc, we enter into the compensation process and we make sure you get what you want or refund you, This is the most efficient model for increased productivity.
Sometimes, starbuck is wasting a coffee but the overall process is efficient. There are other tricks to think when you build your web services like designing them in a way that they can be called any number of times and still provide the same end result. So, my recommendation is:
Don't be too fine when defining your web services (I am not convinced about the micro-service hype happening these days: too many risks of going too far);
Async increases performance so prefer being async, send notifications by email whenever possible.
Build more intelligent services to make them "recallable" any number of times, processing with an uid or taskid that will follow the order bottom-top until the end, validating business rules in each step;
Use message queues (JMS or others) and divert to error handling processors that will apply operations to "rollback" by applying opposite operations, by the way, working with async order will require some sort of queue to validate the current state of the process, so consider that;
In last resort, (since it may not happen often), put it in a queue for manual processing of errors.
Let's go back with the initial problem that was posted. Create an account and create a wallet and make sure everything was done.
Let's say a web service is called to orchestrate the whole operation.
Pseudo code of the web service would look like this:
Call Account creation microservice, pass it some information and a some unique task id 1.1 Account creation microservice will first check if that account was already created. A task id is associated with the account's record. The microservice detects that the account does not exist so it creates it and stores the task id. NOTE: this service can be called 2000 times, it will always perform the same result. The service answers with a "receipt that contains minimal information to perform an undo operation if required".
Call Wallet creation, giving it the account ID and task id. Let's say a condition is not valid and the wallet creation cannot be performed. The call returns with an error but nothing was created.
The orchestrator is informed of the error. It knows it needs to abort the Account creation but it will not do it itself. It will ask the wallet service to do it by passing its "minimal undo receipt" received at the end of step 1.
The Account service reads the undo receipt and knows how to undo the operation; the undo receipt may even include information about another microservice it could have called itself to do part of the job. In this situation, the undo receipt could contain the Account ID and possibly some extra information required to perform the opposite operation. In our case, to simplify things, let's say is simply delete the account using its account id.
Now, let's say the web service never received the success or failure (in this case) that the Account creation's undo was performed. It will simply call the Account's undo service again. And this service should normaly never fail because its goal is for the account to no longer exist. So it checks if it exists and sees nothing can be done to undo it. So it returns that the operation is a success.
The web service returns to the user that the account could not be created.
This is a synchronous example. We could have managed it in a different way and put the case into a message queue targeted to the help desk if we don't want the system to completly recover the error". I've seen this being performed in a company where not enough hooks could be provided to the back end system to correct situations. The help desk received messages containing what was performed successfully and had enough information to fix things just like our undo receipt could be used for in a fully automated way.
I have performed a search and the microsoft web site has a pattern description for this approach. It is called the compensating transaction pattern:
Compensating transaction pattern
All distributed systems have trouble with transactional consistency. The best way to do this is like you said, have a two-phase commit. Have the wallet and the user be created in a pending state. After it is created, make a separate call to activate the user.
This last call should be safely repeatable (in case your connection drops).
This will necessitate that the last call know about both tables (so that it can be done in a single JDBC transaction).
Alternatively, you might want to think about why you are so worried about a user without a wallet. Do you believe this will cause a problem? If so, maybe having those as separate rest calls are a bad idea. If a user shouldn't exist without a wallet, then you should probably add the wallet to the user (in the original POST call to create the user).
IMHO one of the key aspects of microservices architecture is that the transaction is confined to the individual microservice (Single responsibility principle).
In the current example, the User creation would be an own transaction. User creation would push a USER_CREATED event into an event queue. Wallet service would subscribe to the USER_CREATED event and do the Wallet creation.
If my wallet was just another bunch of records in the same sql database as the user then I would probably place the user and wallet creation code in the same service and handle that using the normal database transaction facilities.
It sounds to me you are asking about what happens when the wallet creation code requires you touch another other system or systems? Id say it all depends on how complex and or risky the creation process is.
If it's just a matter of touching another reliable datastore (say one that can't participate in your sql transactions), then depending on the overall system parameters, I might be willing to risk the vanishingly small chance that second write won't happen. I might do nothing, but raise an exception and deal with the inconsistent data via a compensating transaction or even some ad-hoc method. As I always tell my developers: "if this sort of thing is happening in the app, it won't go unnoticed".
As the complexity and risk of wallet creation increases you must take steps to ameliorate the risks involved. Let's say some of the steps require calling multiple partner apis.
At this point you might introduce a message queue along with the notion of partially constructed users and/or wallets.
A simple and effective strategy for making sure your entities eventually get constructed properly is to have the jobs retry until they succeed, but a lot depends on the use cases for your application.
I would also think long and hard about why I had a failure prone step in my provisioning process.
One simple Solution is you create user using the User Service and use a messaging bus where user service emits its events , and Wallet Service registers on the messaging bus, listens on User Created event and create Wallet for the User. In the mean time , if user goes on Wallet UI to see his Wallet, check if user was just created and show your wallet creation is in progress, please check in some time
What solutions are available to prevent this kind of data inconsistency from happening?
Traditionally, distributed transaction managers are used. A few years ago in the Java EE world you might have created these services as EJBs which were deployed to different nodes and your API gateway would have made remote calls to those EJBs. The application server (if configured correctly) automatically ensures, using two phase commit, that the transaction is either committed or rolled back on each node, so that consistency is guaranteed. But that requires that all the services be deployed on the same type of application server (so that they are compatible) and in reality only ever worked with services deployed by a single company.
Are there patterns that allow transactions to span multiple REST requests?
For SOAP (ok, not REST), there is the WS-AT specification but no service that I have ever had to integrate has support that. For REST, JBoss has something in the pipeline. Otherwise, the "pattern" is to either find a product which you can plug into your architecture, or build your own solution (not recommended).
I have published such a product for Java EE: https://github.com/maxant/genericconnector
According to the paper you reference, there is also the Try-Cancel/Confirm pattern and associated Product from Atomikos.
BPEL Engines handle consistency between remotely deployed services using compensation.
Alternatively, I know REST might just not be suited for this use case. Would perhaps the correct way to handle this situation to drop REST entirely and use a different communication protocol like a message queue system?
There are many ways of "binding" non-transactional resources into a transaction:
As you suggest, you could use a transactional message queue, but it will be asynchronous, so if you depend on the response it becomes messy.
You could write the fact that you need to call the back end services into your database, and then call the back end services using a batch. Again, async, so can get messy.
You could use a business process engine as your API gateway to orchestrate the back end microservices.
You could use remote EJB, as mentioned at the start, since that supports distributed transactions out of the box.
Or should I enforce consistency in my application code (for example, by having a background job that detects inconsistencies and fixes them or by having a "state" attribute on my User model with "creating", "created" values, etc.)?
Playing devils advocate: why build something like that, when there are products which do that for you (see above), and probably do it better than you can, because they are tried and tested?
In micro-services world the communication between services should be either through rest client or messaging queue. There can be two ways to handle the transactions across services depending on how are you communicating between the services. I will personally prefer message driven architecture so that a long transaction should be a non blocking operation for a user.
Lets take you example to explain it :
Create user BOB with event CREATE USER and push the message to a message bus.
Wallet service subscribed to this event can create a wallet corresponding to the user.
The one thing which you have to take care is to select a robust reliable message backbone which can persists the state in case of failure. You can use kafka or rabbitmq for messaging backbone. There will be a delay in execution because of eventual consistency but that can be easily updated through socket notification. A notifications service/task manager framework can be a service which update the state of the transactions through asynchronous mechanism like sockets and can help UI to update show the proper progress.
Personally I like the idea of Micro Services, modules defined by the use cases, but as your question mentions, they have adaptation problems for the classical businesses like banks, insurance, telecom, etc...
Distributed transactions, as many mentioned, is not a good choice, people now going more for eventually consistent systems but I am not sure this will work for banks, insurance, etc....
I wrote a blog about my proposed solution, may be this can help you....
https://mehmetsalgar.wordpress.com/2016/11/05/micro-services-fan-out-transaction-problems-and-solutions-with-spring-bootjboss-and-netflix-eureka/
Eventual consistency is the key here.
One of the services is chosen to become primary handler of the event.
This service will handle the original event with single commit.
Primary handler will take responsibility for asynchronously communicating the secondary effects to other services.
The primary handler will do the orchestration of other services calls.
The commander is in charge of the distributed transaction and takes control. It knows the instruction to be executed and will coordinate executing them. In most scenarios there will just be two instructions, but it can handle multiple instructions.
The commander takes responsibility of guaranteeing the execution of all instructions, and that means retires.
When the commander tries to effect the remote update and doesn’t get a response, it has no retry.
This way the system can be configured to be less prone to failure and it heals itself.
As we have retries we have idempotence.
Idempotence is the property of being able to do something twice such a way that the end results be the same as if it had been done once only.
We need idempotence at the remote service or data source so that, in the case where it receives the instruction more than once, it only processes it once.
Eventual consistency
This solves most of distributed transaction challenges, however we need to consider couple of points here.
Every failed transaction will be followed by a retry, the amount of attempted retries depends on the context.
Consistency is eventual i.e., while the system is out of consistent state during a retry, for example if a customer has ordered a book, and made a payment and then updates the stock quantity. If the stock update operations fail and assuming that was the last stock available, the book will still be available till the retry operation for the stock updating has succeeded. After the retry is successful your system will be consistent.
Why not use API Management (APIM) platform that supports scripting/programming? So, you will be able to build composite service in the APIM without disturbing micro services. I have designed using APIGEE for this purpose.
I'm a newbie in web server administration. I've read multiple times that flask built-in web server is not designed for "production", and must be used only for tests and debug...
But what if my app touchs only a thousand users who occasionnaly send data to the server ?
If it works, when will I have to bother with the configuration of a more sophisticated web server ? (I am looking for approximative metrics).
In a nutshell, I would love to find what the builtin web server can do (with approx thresholds) and what it cannot.
Thanks a lot !
There isn't one right answer to this question, but here are some things to keep in mind:
With the right amount of horizontal scaling, it is quite possible you could keep scaling out use of the debug server forever. When exactly you would need to start scaling (or switch to using a "real" web server) would also depend on the environment you are hosting in, the expectations of the users, etc.
The main issue you would probably run into is that the server is single-threaded. This means that it will handle each request one at a time, serially. This means that if you are trying to serve more than one request (including favicons, static items like images, CSS and Javascript files, etc.) the requests will take longer. If any given requests happens to take a long time (say, 20 seconds) then your entire application is unresponsive for that time (20 seconds). This is only the default, of course: you could bump the thread counts (or have requests be handled in other processes), which might alleviate some issues. But once again, it can still be slow under a "high" load. What is considered a "high" load will be dependent on your application and the expectations of a maximum acceptable response time.
Another issue is security: if you are concerned at ALL about security (and not just the security of the data in the application itself, but the security of the box that will be running it as well) then you should not use the development server. It is not ready to withstand any sort of attack.
Finally, the development server could just fail outright. It is not designed to be used as a long-running process (days, weeks, months), and so it has not been well tested to work in this capacity.
So, yes, it has limitations. Yes, you could still conceivably use it in production. And yes, I would still recommend using a "real" web server. If you don't like the idea of needing to install something like Apache or Nginx, you can still go with a solution that is still as easy as "run a python script" by using some of the WSGI Standalone servers, which can run a server that is designed to be in production with something just as simple as running python run_app.py in the command line. You typically just need to create a 4-5 line python script to import and create the server object, point it to your Flask app, and run it.
gunicorn could be run with only the following on the command line, no extra script needed:
gunicorn myproject:app
...where "myproject" is the Python package that contains the app Flask object. Keep in mind that one of developers of gunicorn would probably recommend against this approach. See https://serverfault.com/questions/331256/why-do-i-need-nginx-and-something-like-gunicorn.
The OP has long-since moved on, but for those who encounter this question in the future I would just add that setting up an Apache server, even on a laptop, is free and pretty easy. It can be readily configured for as few or as many features as you want just by uncomment in or commenting out lines in the config file. There might be an even easier GUI method for doing that nowdays, but just editing the configs is simple.
When I deployed my site that uses nservice to a new production box, it was unusably slow...
After some debugging I discovered that mqsvc.exe was taking up 50% of the CPU usage and the other 50% was being taken up by w3wp.exe
I found this post here:
http://geekswithblogs.net/michaelstephenson/archive/2010/05/07/139717.aspx
which recommended the following:
Make sure you set the windows service for NserviceBus Generic Host to the right credentials
Make sure you have the queue set with the right permissions
Make sure you turn on the right logging configuration in NServiceBus
So I figured the issue was something related to permissions, but even after trying to set the permissions correctly (I thought) I still wasn't able to resolve the issue.
If you allow NServiceBus to create its own queues, then it will create them with the correct permissions it needs.
The problem comes in when you set up a web application, and then the queues are created, and then the identity the application runs under changes. Then you get exactly this problem. NServiceBus tries to check the queue for a message, it does not have access to do so, so it immediately retries over and over, and you spike the processor.
The fix: Delete the queue. Restart the web application. NServiceBus takes over.
Edit: As noted in the comments, NServiceBus 3.x doesn't invoke the installers by default, which means queues are not automatically created in production unless you ask it to. See the documentation page on Installers for more detail.
For a web application (or any other situation where you're not using NServiceBus.Host) you can invoke the installers as part of the fluent config. There is a full example in the NServiceBus download, but here is a link to the relevant file on GitHub.
The issue did end up being that the website needed to be granted explicit permissions to the queues.
I found a number of resources online telling me this, but I still had to spend a good amount of time monkeying around with exactly WHICH account needed access... turned out that since my application pools were set to run as ApplicationPoolIdentity, I need to grant the account permissions by adding the following account to the nservicebus queue:
IIS AppPool\{APP POOL NAME}
I granted full access rights, though I'm sure you could refine that a bit if you needed to.
Hopefully, this will help anyone who runs into the same issues.
(This is my first attempt at the "Answer your own question" mechanism so please let me know if I am doing something wrong..)
I am building a client-side product with REST. All user interaction will be done with a browser (the config stuff will be on a server running on localhost). I want everything to be REST compliant, even though the application will be running on a client's machine on localhost and will never be accessible from the outside.
The commands are pretty simple:
update
restart
sync
Here's what I've come up with:
POST to / with 'action' parameter (JSON) detailing specifics
PUT a new resource
subsequent GET requests will return the status
when the command is complete, the resource is deleted
What would be the most RESTful way to implement this?
Note:
I'm not asking for scrutinization of my software architecture. I have reasons for choosing a REST interface instead of a unix domain socket, CLI interface, or even a regular GUI interface. The justification would overcomplicate the question and make it too localized.
I have had the same need on a couple of different projects (both client only and server) and I am looking for community input on best practices.
I would POST to a /process resource with the appropriate parameters necessary to start the process, then I would have it return a Location header to that resource that actually represents the process status (/process/123). You can then use GET on that process to get the latest information about it.
I would not automatically delete the process, because if you do that, the client will not know if the process finished properly or not, just simply that it finished (well, stopped running).
Noting that, the client can certainly DELETE the resource when it is done, or you can clean it up later after some reasonable time where whoever was interested in it is likely not to be any more.