I am working on an application where multiple clients will be writing to a queue (or queues), and multiple workers will be processing jobs off the queue. The problem is that in some cases, jobs are dependent on each other. By 'dependent', I mean they need to be processed in order.
This typically happens when an entity is created by the user, then deleted shortly after. Obviously I want the first job (i.e. the creation) to take place before the deletion. The problem is that creation can take a lot longer than deletion, so I can't guarantee that it will be complete before the deletion job commences.
I imagine that this type of problem is reasonably common with asynchronous processing. What strategies are there to deal with it? I know that I can assign priorities to queues to have some control over the processing order, but this is not good enough in this case. I need concrete guarantees.
This may not fit your model, but the model I have used involves not providing the deletion functionality until the creation functionality is complete.
When Create_XXX command is completed, it is responsible for raising an XXX_Created event, which also gets put on the queue. This event can then be handled to enable the deletion functionality, allowing the deletion of the newly created item.
The process of a Command completing, then raising an event which is handled and creates another Command is a common method of ensuring Commands get processed in the desired order.
I think an handy feature for your use case is Job chaining:
https://laravel.com/docs/5.5/queues#job-chaining
Related
I have an application which listens to a stream of events. These events tend to come in chunks: 10 to 20 of them within the same second, with minutes or even hours of silence between them. These events are processed and result in an aggregate state, and this updated state is sent further downstream.
In pseudo code, it would look something like this:
kafkaSource()
.mapAsync(1)((entityId, event) => entityProcessor(entityId).process(event)) // yields entityState
.mapAsync(1)(entityState => submitStateToExternalService(entityState))
.runWith(kafkaCommitterSink)
The thing is that the downstream submitStateToExternalService has no use for 10-20 updated states per second - it would be far more efficient to just emit the last one and only handle that one.
With that in mind, I started looking if it wouldn't be possible to not emit the state after processing immediately, and instead wait a little while to see if more events are coming in.
In a way, it's similar to conflate, but that emits elements as soon as the downstream stops backpressuring, and my processing is actually fast enough to keep up with the events coming in, so I can't rely on backpressure.
I came across groupedWithin, but this emits elements whenever the window ends (or the max number of elements is reached). What I would ideally want, is a time window where the waiting time before emitting downstream is reset by each new element in the group.
Before I implement something to do this myself, I wanted to make sure that I didn't just overlook a way of doing this that is already present in akka-streams, because this seems like a fairly common thing to do.
Honestly, I would make entityProcessor into an cluster sharded persistent actor.
case class ProcessEvent(entityId: String, evt: EntityEvent)
val entityRegion = ClusterSharding(system).shardRegion("entity")
kafkaSource()
.mapAsync(parallelism) { (entityId, event) =>
entityRegion ? ProcessEvent(entityId, event)
}
.runWith(kafkaCommitterSink)
With this, you can safely increase the parallelism so that you can handle events for multiple entities simultaneously without fear of mis-ordering the events for any particular entity.
Your entity actors would then update their state in response to the process commands and persist the events using a suitable persistence plugin, sending a reply to complete the ask pattern. One way to get the compaction effect you're looking for is for them to schedule the update of the external service after some period of time (after cancelling any previously scheduled update).
There is one potential pitfall with this scheme (it's also a potential issue with a homemade Akka Stream solution to allow n > 1 events to be processed before updating the state): what happens if the service fails between updating the local view of state and updating the external service?
One way you can deal with this is to encode whether the entity is dirty (has state which hasn't propagated to the external service) in the entity's state and at startup build a list of entities and run through them to have dirty entities update the external state.
If the entities are doing more than just tracking state for publishing to a single external datastore, it might be useful to use Akka Persistence Query to build a full-fledged read-side view to update the external service. In this case, though, since the read-side view's (State, Event) => State transition would be the same as the entity processor's, it might not make sense to go this way.
A midway alternative would be to offload the scheduling etc. to a different actor or set of actors which get told "this entity updated it's state" and then schedule an ask of the entity for its current state with a timestamp of when the state was locally updated. When the response is received, the external service is updated, if the timestamp is newer than the last update.
In Axon's reference guide it is written that
Besides these provided policies, you can define your own. All policies must implement the SequencingPolicy interface. This interface defines a single method, getSequenceIdentifierFor, that returns the sequence identifier for a given event. Events for which an equal sequence identifier is returned must be processed sequentially. Events that produce a different sequence identifier may be processed concurrently.
Even more, in this thread's last message it says that
with the sequencing policy, you indicate which events need to be processed sequentially. It doesn't matter whether the threads are in the same JVM, or in different ones. If the sequencing policy returns the same value for 2 messages, they will be guaranteed to be processed sequentially, even if you have tracking processor threads across multiple JVMs.
So does this mean that event processors are actually stateless? If yes, then how do they manage to synchronise? Is the token store used for this purpose?
I think this depends on what you count as state, but I assume that from the point of view your looking at it, yes, the EventProcessor implementations in Axon are indeed stateless.
The SubscribingEventProcessor receives it's events from a SubscribableMessageSource (the EventBus implements this interface) when they occur.
The TrackingEventProcessor retrieves it's event from a StreamableMessageSource (the EventStore implements this interface) on it's own leisure.
The latter version for that needs to keep track of where it is in regards to events on the event stream. This information is stored in a TrackingToken, which is saved by the TokenStore.
A given TrackingEventProcessor thread can only handle events if it has laid a claim on the TrackingToken for the processing group it is part of. Hence, this ensure that the same event isn't handled by two distinct threads to accidentally update the same query model.
The TrackingToken also allow multithreading this process, which is done by segmented the token. The number of segments (adjustable through the initialSegmentCount) drives the number of pieces the TrackingToken for a given processing group will be partitioned in. From the point of view of the TokenStore, this means you'll have several TrackingToken instances stored which equal the number of segments you've set it to.
The SequencingPolicy its job is to drive which events in a stream belong to which segment. Doing so, you could for example use the SequentialPerAggregate SequencingPolicy to ensure all the events with a given aggregate identifier are handled by one segment.
On production enviroments event numbers scale massively, on cases of emergency how can you re run all the handlers when it can take days if they are too many?
Depends on which sort of emergency you are describing
If the nature of your emergency is that your event handlers have fallen massively behind the writers (eg: your message consumers blocked, and you now have 48 hours of backlog waiting for you) -- not much. If your consumer is parallelizable, you may be able to speed things up by using a data structure like LMAX Disruptor to support parallel recovery.
(Analog: you decide to introduce a new read model, which requires processing a huge backlog of data to achieve the correct state. There isn't any "answer", except chewing through them all. In some cases, you may be able to create an approximation based on some manageable number of events, while waiting for the real answer to complete, but there's no shortcut to processing all events).
On the other hand, in cases where the history is large, but the backlog is manageable (ie - the write model wasn't producing new events), you can usually avoid needing a full replay.
In the write model: most event sourced solutions leverage an event store that supports multiple event streams - each aggregate in the write model has a dedicated stream. Massive event numbers usually means massive numbers of manageable streams. Where that's true, you can just leave the write model alone -- load the entire history on demand.
In cases where that assumption doesn't hold -- a part of the write model that has an extremely large stream, or a pieces of the read model that compose events of multiple streams, the usual answer is snapshotting.
Which is to say, in the healthy system, the handlers persist their state on some schedule, and include in the meta data an identifier that tracks where in the history that snapshot was taken.
To recover, you reload the snapshot, and the identifier. You then start the replay from that point (this assumes you've got an event store that allows you to start the replay from an arbitrary point in the history).
So managing recovery time is simply a matter of tuning the snapshotting interval so that you are never more than recovery SLA behind "latest". The creation of the snapshots can happen in a completely separate process. (In truth, your persistent snapshot store looks a lot like a persisted read model).
I have a doubt regarding UVM. Let's think I have a DUT with two interfaces, each one with its agent, generating transactions with the same clock. These transactions are handled with analysis imports (and write functions) on the scoreboard. My problem is that both these transactions read/modify shared variables of the scoreboard.
My questions are:
1) Have I to guarantee mutual exclusion explicitly though a semaphore? (i suppose yes)
2) Is this, in general, a correct way to proceed?
3) and the main problem, can in some way the order of execution be fixed?
Depending on that order the values of shared variables can change, generating inconsistency. Moreover, that order is fixed by specifications.
Thanks in advance.
While SystemVerilog tasks and functions do run concurrently, they do not run in parallel. It is important to understand the difference between parallelism and concurrency and it has been explained well here.
So while a SystemVerilog task or function could be executing concurrently with another task or function, in reality it does not actually run at the same time (run time context). The SystemVerilog scheduler keeps a list of all the tasks and functions that need to run on the same simulation time and at that time it executes them one-by-one (sequentially) on the same processor (concurrency) and not together on multiple processors (parallelism). As a result mutual exclusion is implicit and you do not need to use semaphores on that account.
The sequence in which two such concurrent functions would be executed is not deterministic but it is repeatable. So when you execute a testbench multiple times on the same simulator, the sequence of execution would be same. But two different simulators (or different versions of the same simulator) could execute these functions in a different order.
If the specifications require a certain order of execution, you need to ensure that order by making one of these tasks/functions wait on the other. In your scoreboard example, since you are using analysis port, you will have two "write" functions (perhaps using uvm_analysis_imp_decl macro) executing concurrently. To ensure an order, (since functions can not wait) you can fork out join_none threads and make one of the threads wait on the other by introducing an event that gets triggered at the conclusion of the first thread and the other thread waits for this event at the start.
This is a pretty difficult problem to address. If you get 2 transactions in the same time step, you have to be able to process them regardless of the order in which they get sent to your scoreboard. You can't know for sure which monitor will get triggered first. The only thing you can do is collect the transactions and at the end of the time step do your modeling/checking/etc.
Semaphores only help you if you have concurrent threads that take (simulation) time that are trying to access a shared resource. If you get things from an analysis port, then you get them in 0 time, so semaphores won't help you here.
So to my understanding, the answer is: compiler/vendor/uvm cannot ensure the order of execution. If you need to ensure the order which actually happen in same time step, you need to use semaphore correctly to make it work the way you want.
Another thing is, only you yourself know which one must execute after the other if they are in same simulation time.
this is a classical race condition where the result depends upon the actual thread order...
first of all you have to decide if the write race is problematic for you and/or if there is a priority order in this case. if you dont care the last access would win.
if the access isnt atomic you might need a semaphore to ensure only one access is handled at a time and the next waits till the first has finished.
you can also try to control order by changing the structure or introducing thread ordering (wait_order) or if possible you remove timing at all (here instead of directly operating with the data you get you simply store the data for some time and then later you operate on it.
I am trying to implement job queue with MSMQ to save up some time on me implementing it in SQL. After reading around I realized MSMQ might not offer what I am after. Could you please advice me if my plan is realistic using MSMQ or recommend an alternative ?
I have number of processes picking up jobs from a queue (I might need to scale out in the future), once job is picked up processing follows, during this time job is locked to other processes by status, if needed job is chucked back (status changes again) to the queue for further processing, but physically the job still sits in the queue until completed.
MSMQ doesn't let me to keep the message in the queue while working on it, eg I can peek or read. Read takes message out of queue and peek doesn't allow changing the message (status).
Thank you
Using MSMQ as a datastore is probably bad as it's not designed for storage at all. Unless the queues are transactional the messages may not even get written to disk.
Certainly updating queue items in-situ is not supported for the reasons you state.
If you don't want a full blown relational DB you could use an in-memory cache of some kind, like memcached, or a cheap object db like raven.
Take a look at RabbitMQ, or many of the other messages queues. Most offer this functionality out of the box.
For example. RabbitMQ calls what you are describing, Work Queues. Multiple consumers can pull from the same queue and not pull the same item. Furthermore, if you use acknowledgements and the processing fails, the item is not removed from the queue.
.net examples:
https://www.rabbitmq.com/tutorials/tutorial-two-dotnet.html
EDIT: After using MSMQ myself, it would probably work very well for what you are doing, as far as I can tell. The key is to use transactions and multiple queues. For example, each status should have it's own queue. It's fairly safe to "move" messages from one queue to another since it occurs within a transaction. This moving of messages is essentially your change of status.
We also use the Message Extension byte array for storing message metadata, like status. This way we don't have to alter the actual message when moving it to another queue.
MSMQ and queues in general, require a different set of patterns than what most programmers are use to. Keep that in mind.
Perhaps, if you can give more information on why you need to peek for messages that are currently in process, there would be a way to handle that scenario with MSMQ. You could always add a database for additional tracking.