I am new to Spring Cloud. Currently, I want to build a new micro service based on Spring Cloud. It is very easy to build a new Eureka server. But my question is that how to make it high availability ? For example I create two Eureka server and a load balancer. When one of the Eureka server is down, the system still works well. But I don't know to to consist registered information in the two Eureka server.
I have already asked something similar in the spring cloud gitter channel.
Because of the CAP theorem, something as a distributes Service discovery has to decide, either to provide availability, or more consistency, with a trade off to the other one.
in short, by quoting Spencer Gibb:
Eureka favors availability over consistency
so it is very available, while registred services may be not acutal anymore.
As Spencer suggested, if consistency is something you need more then availability, try Consul together with spring cloud consul intead
Related
My company is interested in using a stand-alone Service Fabric cluster to manage communications with robots. In our scenario, each robot would host its own rosbridge server, and our Service Fabric application would maintain WebSocket clients to each robot. I envision a stateful service partitioned along device ids which opens connections on startup. It should monitor connection health via heartbeats, pass messages from the robots to some protocol gateway service, and listen to other services for messages to pass to the robots.
I have not seen discussion of this style of external communications in the Service Fabric documentation - I cannot tell if this is because:
There are no special considerations for managing WebSockets (or any two-way network protocol) this way from Service Fabric. I've seen no discussion of restrictions and see no reason, conceptually, why I can't do this. I originally thought replication would be problematic (duplicate messages?), but since only one replica can be primary at any time this appears to be a non-issue.
Service Fabric is not well-suited to bi-directional communication with external devices
I would appreciate some guidance on whether this architecture is feasible. If not, discussion on why it won't work will be helpful. General discussion of limitations around bi-directional communication between Service Fabric services and external devices is welcome. I would prefer if we could keep discussion to stand-alone clusters - we have no plans to use Azure services at this time.
Any particular reason you want SF to host the client and not the other way around?
Doing the way you suggest, I think you will face big challenges to make SF find these devices on your network and keep track of them, for example, Firewall, IPs, NAT, planned maintenance, failures, connection issues, unless you are planning to do it by hand.
From the brief description I saw in the docs your provided about rosbridge server, I could understand that you have to host it on a Server(like you would with a service fabric service) and your devices would connect to it, in this case, your devices would have installed the ROS to make this communication.
Regarding your concerns about the communication, service fabric services are just executable programs you would normally run on your local machine, if it works there will likely work on service fabric environment on premise, the only extra care you have to worry is the external access to the cluster(if in azure or network configurations) and service discovery.
In my point of view, you should use SF as the central point of communication, and each device would connect to SF services.
The other approach would be using Azure IoT Hub to bridge the communication between both. There is a nice Iot Hub + Service Fabric Sample that might be suitable for your needs.
Because you want to avoid Azure, you could in this case replace IoT Hub with another messaging platform or implement the rosbridge in your service to handle the calls.
I hope I understood everything right.
About the obstacles:
I think the major issue here is that bi-directional connection can be established between service replica and the robot.
This has two major problems:
Only primary replica has write access - i.e. only one replica would be able to modify state. This issue hence could be mitigated by creating a separate partition for each robot (but please remember that you can't change partition count after the service was created) or by creating a separate service instance for each robot (this would allow you to dynamically add or remove robots but would require additional logic related to service discoverability).
The replica can be shutdown (terminated), moved to another node (shutdown and start of new replica) or even demoted (the primary replica get's demoted to secondary and another secondary replica get's promoted to primary) by various reasons. So the service code and robot communication code should be able to handle this.
About WebSockets
This looks possible by implementing custom ICommunicationListener and other things using WebSockets.
I am switching all my service infrastructure from eureka to consul.
In the eureka case I have multiple services with the same name and Eureka handles this via the Application and instance to differentiate.
In the consul case, if I have this naming scheme, does spring cloud generate unique ids under eh covers?
I read where consul will use the id and name synonymously unless you register them under unique ids.
So you can have service 1 as (name=myservice, id=xxx) and service 2 as (name=myservice, id=yyy).
So in that way consul preserves uniqueness. What does spring cloud do under the covers?
Ok, so it appears that the question is not clear.
I know that I can specify uniqueness when I define them but I don't
I have a large microservices-based system in production. We have multiples of each microservices for both redundancy and scaling and we do not specifically set uniqueness on the services.
We don't because Eureka does this for us. Say I have a CustomerAccountService with 5 instances then I when I request customer account service I can see 5 instances. Looking at the Eureka data model, we see one Application and 5 instances of it.
So I am planning on moving to consul and want t preserve a similar mode of operation. Many instances of the same time of service.
What I really want to know is how the spring consul registration works under the covers or do I have to do something special for this.
I do know that COnsul defines a name and an id and that they can be the same or they can be different.
So can I have the name for 5 instances the same and have the id variate? If so, how does that happen in the spring cloud consul version of this.
Any application registered with the same spring.application.name in Consul using Spring Cloud will be grouped together just like Eureka.
I want to know if it is possible to run kafka as a cloud-native application, and can I create a kafka cluster as a service on Pivotal Web Services. I don't want only client integration, I want to run the kafka cluster/service itself?
Thanks,
Anil
I can point you at a few starting points, there would be some work involved to go from those starting points to something fully functional.
One option is to deploy the kafka cluster on Cloud Foundry (e.g. Pivotal Web Services) using docker images. Spotify has Dockerized kafka and kafka-proxy (including Zookeeper). One thing to keep in mind is that PWS currently doesn't support apps with persistence (although this work is starting) so if you were to go this route right now, you would lose the data in kafka when the application is rolled. Looking at that Spotify repo, it looks like the docker images are generally run without any mounted volumes, so this persistence-less kafka seems like it may be a valid use case (I don't know enough about kafka to say).
The other option is to deploy kafka directly on some IaaS (e.g. AWS) using BOSH. BOSH can be hard if you're seeing it for the first time, but it is the ideal way to deploy any distributed software that you want running on VMs. You will also be able to have persistent volumes attached to your kafka VMs if necessary. Here is a kafka BOSH release which may work.
Once you have your cluster running, you have two ways to integrate your Cloud Foundry applications with it. The simplest is just to provide it to your applications as a "user-provided service", which lets you flow kafka cluster access info to your apps. The alternative would to put a service broker in front of your cluster, which would be especially useful if you have many different people who will be pushing apps that need to talk to the kafka cluster. Rather than you having to manually tell people the access info each time, they can do something simple like cf bind-service SOME_APP YOUR_KAFKA_SERVICE. Here is a kafka service broker along with more info about service brokers in general.
According to the 12-factor app description (https://12factor.net/processes), Kafka should not run as an application on top of Cloud Foundry:
Twelve-factor processes are stateless and share-nothing. Any data that needs to persist must be stored in a stateful backing service, typically a database.
Kafka is often considered a "distributed commit log" and as such carries a large amount of state. Many companies use it to keep all events flowing through their distributed system of micro services for a long (sometimes unlimited) amount of time.
Therefore I would strongly recommend to go for the second option in the accepted answer: Kafka topics should be bound to your applications in the form of stateful services.
There is an emerging trend of ripping global state out of traditional "static" config management tools like Chef/Puppet/Ansible, and instead storing configurations in some centralized/distributed tool, of which the main players appear to be:
ZooKeeper (Apache)
Consul (Hashicorp)
Eureka (Netflix)
Each of these tools works differently, but the principle is the same:
Store your env vars and other dynamic configurations (that is, stuff that is subject to change) in these tools as key/value pairs
Connect to these tools/services via clients at startup and pull down your config KV pairs. This typically requires the client to supply a service name ("MY_APP"), and an environment ("DEV", "PROD", etc.).
There is an excellent Consul Java client which explains all of this beautifully and provides ample code examples.
My understanding of these tools is that they are built on top of consensus algorithms such as Zab, Paxos and Gossip that allow config updates to spread almost virally, with eventual consistency, throughout your nodes. So the idea there is that if you have a myapp app that has 20 nodes, say myapp01 through myapp20, if you make a config change to one of them, that change will naturally "spread" throughout the 20 nodes over a period of seconds/minutes.
My problem is: how do these updates actually deploy to each node? In none of the client APIs (the one I linked to above, the ZooKeeper API, or the Eureka API) do I see some kind of callback functionality that can be set up and used to notify the client when the centralized service (e.g. the Consul cluster) wants to push and reload config updates.
So I ask: how is this supposed to work (dynamic config deployment and reload on clients)? I'm interested in any viable answer for any of those 3 tools, though Consul's API seems to be the most advanced IMHO.
You could use cfg4j for that. It's a Java configuration library for distributed services. It supports Consul as one of the configuration sources.
That's a nice question. I can tell how Consul HTTP client works.
I also think initially that it works in the push mechanism but while I was recently exploring Consul, I found that all Consul clients poll server for changes they want to watch. Although it is a bit different polling mechanism, Consul supports blocking queries. These are HTTP requests with a max timeout of 10 mins. This query waits until there is some change on the watched key/folder and return with the latest index. If the index is changed, the client reloads the configuration. For more info : Consul Blocking Query
We are running client-side MOXI on the same machine as our Tomcat servers, with MOXI currently talking to a cluster of membase servers on 3 different machines. The java clients talk to MOXI using spymemcached communicating to MOXI through data port 11211.
We are going to migrate to Couchbase now and from a development perspective, we'd like to use spring-data with couchbase but our infrastructure team want to keep MOXI on the client machines and only communicate via port 11211. It seems that when configuring the Couchbase client, this won't work as MOXI doesn't proxy the port 8901 (admin port) that the CouchbaseClient class uses to discover the Couchbase cluster. Does this mean that if we keep our current infrastructure that Spring Data is off the table?
I am new to this and have went through the Couchbase documentation, and it seems like what I want to do isn't possible, but would like to confirm this. Currently, to configure spring-data I am using this:
<couchbase:couchbase bucket="appsbucket" password="" host="localhost"/>
<couchbase:repositories base-package="com.pathto.myrepositories"/>
Localhost is where MOXI is running, but the assumption made by the the couchbase bean (the CouchbaseClient configuration) is that the couchbase admin port is available at port 8901. Of course, if instead of localhost I point it toward one of the servers hosting Couchbase, I don't have an issue other than our infrastructure team takes umbrage with this configuration.
Once you move to Couchbase with a smart client there isn't really much value in moxi; and in fact you'll be introducing an additional network hop (client -> moxi; moxi -> cluster).
You can think of the smart clients as conceptually having an embedded moxi - as the smart clients are aware of the cluster topology and know which node to communicate with to access a given document.
I suggest you take a look a the Deployment strategies section in the Couchbase admin guide which explains all this in more detail.