I have an actor using Akka which performs an action that takes some time to complete, because it has to download a file from the network.
def receive = {
case songId: String => {
Future {
val futureFile = downloadFile(songId)
for (file <- futureFile) {
val fileName = doSomenthingWith(file)
otherActor ! fileName
}
}
}
}
I would like to control the flow of messages to this actor. If I try to download too many files simultaneously, I have a network bottleneck. The problem is that I am using a Future inside the actor receive, so, the methods exits and the actor is ready to process a new message. If I remove the Future, I will download only one file per time.
What is the best way to limit the number of messages being processed per unit of time? Is there a better way to design this code?
There is a contrib project for Akka that provides a throttle implementation (http://letitcrash.com/post/28901663062/throttling-messages-in-akka-2). If you sit this in front of the actual download actor then you can effectively throttle the rate of messages going into that actor. It's not 100% perfect in that if the download times are taking longer than expected you could still end up with more downloads then might be desired, but it's a pretty simple implementation and we use it quite a bit to great effect.
Another option could be to use a pool of download actors and remove the future and allow the actors to perform this blocking so that they are truly handling only one message at a time. Because you are going to let them block, I would suggest giving them their own Dispatcher (ExecutionContext) so that this blocking does not negatively effect the main Akka Dispatcher. If you do this, then the pool size itself represents your max allowed number of simultaneous downloads.
Both of these solutions are pretty much "out-of-the-box" solutions that don't require much custom logic to support your use case.
Edit
I also thought it would be good to mention the Work Pulling Pattern as well. With this approach you could still use a pool and then a single work distributer in front. Each worker (download actor) could perform the download (still using a Future) and only request new work (pull) from the work distributer when that Future has fully completed meaning the download is done.
If you have an upper bound on the amount of simultanious downloads you want to happen you can 'ack' back to the actor saying that a download completed and to free up a spot to download another file:
case object AckFileRequest
class ActorExample(otherActor:ActorRef, maxFileRequests:Int = 1) extends Actor {
var fileRequests = 0
def receive = {
case songId: String if fileRequests < maxFileRequests =>
fileRequests += 1
val thisActor = self
Future {
val futureFile = downloadFile(songId)
//not sure if you're returning the downloaded file or a future here,
//but you can move this to wherever the downloaded file is and ack
thisActor ! AckFileRequest
for (file <- futureFile) {
val fileName = doSomenthingWith(file)
otherActor ! fileName
}
}
case songId: String =>
//Do some throttling here
val thisActor = self
context.system.scheduler.scheduleOnce(1 second, thisActor, songId)
case AckFileRequest => fileRequests -= 1
}
}
In this example, if there are too many file requests then we put this songId request on hold and queue it back up for processing 1 second later. You can obviously change this however you see fit, maybe you can just send the message straight back to the actor in a tight loop or do some other throttling, depends on your use case.
There is a contrib implementation of message Throttling, as described here.
The code is very simple:
// A simple actor that prints whatever it receives
class Printer extends Actor {
def receive = {
case x => println(x)
}
}
val printer = system.actorOf(Props[Printer], "printer")
// The throttler for this example, setting the rate
val throttler = system.actorOf(Props(classOf[TimerBasedThrottler], 3 msgsPer 1.second))
// Set the target
throttler ! SetTarget(Some(printer))
// These three messages will be sent to the printer immediately
throttler ! "1"
throttler ! "2"
throttler ! "3"
// These two will wait at least until 1 second has passed
throttler ! "4"
throttler ! "5"
Related
I'm building an app that has the following flow:
There is a source of items to process
Each item should be processed by external command (it'll be ffmpeg in the end but for this simple reproducible use case it is just cat to have data be passed through it)
In the end, the output of such external command is saved somewhere (again, for the sake of this example it just saves it to a local text file)
So I'm doing the following operations:
Prepare a source with items
Make an Akka graph that uses Broadcast to fan-out the source items into individual flows
Individual flows uses ProcessBuilder in conjunction with Flow.fromSinkAndSource to build flow out of this external process execution
End the individual flows with a sink that saves the data to a file.
Complete code example:
import akka.actor.ActorSystem
import akka.stream.scaladsl.GraphDSL.Implicits._
import akka.stream.scaladsl._
import akka.stream.ClosedShape
import akka.util.ByteString
import java.io.{BufferedInputStream, BufferedOutputStream}
import java.nio.file.Paths
import scala.concurrent.duration.Duration
import scala.concurrent.{Await, ExecutionContext, Future}
object MyApp extends App {
// When this is changed to something above 15, the graph just stops
val PROCESSES_COUNT = Integer.parseInt(args(0))
println(s"Running with ${PROCESSES_COUNT} processes...")
implicit val system = ActorSystem("MyApp")
implicit val globalContext: ExecutionContext = ExecutionContext.global
def executeCmdOnStream(cmd: String): Flow[ByteString, ByteString, _] = {
val convertProcess = new ProcessBuilder(cmd).start
val pipeIn = new BufferedOutputStream(convertProcess.getOutputStream)
val pipeOut = new BufferedInputStream(convertProcess.getInputStream)
Flow
.fromSinkAndSource(StreamConverters.fromOutputStream(() ⇒ pipeIn), StreamConverters.fromInputStream(() ⇒ pipeOut))
}
val source = Source(1 to 100)
.map(element => {
println(s"--emit: ${element}")
ByteString(element)
})
val sinksList = (1 to PROCESSES_COUNT).map(i => {
Flow[ByteString]
.via(executeCmdOnStream("cat"))
.toMat(FileIO.toPath(Paths.get(s"process-$i.txt")))(Keep.right)
})
val graph = GraphDSL.create(sinksList) { implicit builder => sinks =>
val broadcast = builder.add(Broadcast[ByteString](sinks.size))
source ~> broadcast.in
for (i <- broadcast.outlets.indices) {
broadcast.out(i) ~> sinks(i)
}
ClosedShape
}
Await.result(Future.sequence(RunnableGraph.fromGraph(graph).run()), Duration.Inf)
}
Run this using following command:
sbt "run PROCESSES_COUNT"
i.e.
sbt "run 15"
This all works quite well until I raise the amount of "external processes" (PROCESSES_COUNT in the code). When it's 15 or less, all goes well but when it's 16 or more then the following things happen:
Whole execution just hangs after emitting the first 16 items (this amount of 16 items is Akka's default buffer size AFAIK)
I can see that cat processes are started in the system (all 16 of them)
When I manually kill one of these cat processes in the system, something frees up and processing continues (of course in the result, one file is empty because I killed its processing command)
I checked that this is caused by the external execution for sure (not i.e. limit of Akka Broadcast itself).
I recorded a video showing these two situations (first, 15 items working fine and then 16 items hanging and freed up by killing one process) - link to the video
Both the code and video are in this repo
I'd appreciate any help or suggestions where to look solution for this one.
It is an interesting problem and it looks like that the stream is dead-locking. The increase of threads may be fixing the symptom but not the underlying problem.
The problem is following code
Flow
.fromSinkAndSource(
StreamConverters.fromOutputStream(() => pipeIn),
StreamConverters.fromInputStream(() => pipeOut)
)
Both fromInputStream and fromOutputStream will be using the same default-blocking-io-dispatcher as you correctly noticed. The reason for using a dedicated thread pool is that both perform Java API calls that are blocking the running thread.
Here is a part of a thread stack trace of fromInputStream that shows where blocking is happening.
at java.io.FileInputStream.readBytes(java.base#11.0.13/Native Method)
at java.io.FileInputStream.read(java.base#11.0.13/FileInputStream.java:279)
at java.io.BufferedInputStream.read1(java.base#11.0.13/BufferedInputStream.java:290)
at java.io.BufferedInputStream.read(java.base#11.0.13/BufferedInputStream.java:351)
- locked <merged>(a java.lang.ProcessImpl$ProcessPipeInputStream)
at java.io.BufferedInputStream.read1(java.base#11.0.13/BufferedInputStream.java:290)
at java.io.BufferedInputStream.read(java.base#11.0.13/BufferedInputStream.java:351)
- locked <merged>(a java.io.BufferedInputStream)
at java.io.FilterInputStream.read(java.base#11.0.13/FilterInputStream.java:107)
at akka.stream.impl.io.InputStreamSource$$anon$1.onPull(InputStreamSource.scala:63)
Now, you're running 16 simultaneous Sinks that are connected to a single Source. To support back-pressure, a Source will only produce an element when all Sinks send a pull command.
What happens next is that you have 16 calls to method FileInputStream.readBytes at the same time and they immediately block all threads of default-blocking-io-dispatcher. And there are no threads left for fromOutputStream to write any data from the Source or perform any kind of work. Thus, you have a dead-lock.
The problem can be fixed if you increase the threads in the pool. But this just removes the symptom.
The correct solution is to run fromOutputStream and fromInputStream in two separate thread pools. Here is how you can do it.
Flow
.fromSinkAndSource(
StreamConverters.fromOutputStream(() => pipeIn).async("blocking-1"),
StreamConverters.fromInputStream(() => pipeOut).async("blocking-2")
)
with following config
blocking-1 {
type = "Dispatcher"
executor = "thread-pool-executor"
throughput = 1
thread-pool-executor {
fixed-pool-size = 2
}
}
blocking-2 {
type = "Dispatcher"
executor = "thread-pool-executor"
throughput = 1
thread-pool-executor {
fixed-pool-size = 2
}
}
Because they don't share the pools anymore, both fromOutputStream and fromInputStream can perform their tasks independently.
Also note that I just assigned 2 threads per pool to show that it's not about the thread count but about the pool separation.
I hope this helps to understand akka streams better.
Turns out this was limit on Akka configuration level of blocking IO dispatchers:
So changing that value to something bigger than the amount of streams fixed the issue:
akka.actor.default-blocking-io-dispatcher.thread-pool-executor.fixed-pool-size = 50
I'm trying to consume a bunch of files from S3 in a streaming manner using akka streams:
S3.listBucket("<bucket>", Some("<common_prefix>"))
.flatMapConcat { r => S3.download("<bucket>", r.key) }
.mapConcat(_.toList)
.flatMapConcat(_._1)
.via(Compression.gunzip())
.via(Framing.delimiter(ByteString("\n"), Int.MaxValue))
.map(_.utf8String)
.runForeach { x => println(x) }
Without increasing akka.http.host-connection-pool.response-entity-subscription-timeout I get
java.util.concurrent.TimeoutException: Response entity was not subscribed after 1 second. Make sure to read the response entity body or call discardBytes() on it. for the second file, just after printing the last line of the first file, when trying to access the first line of the second file.
I understand the nature of that exception. I don't understand why the request to the second file is already in progress, while the first file is still being processed. I guess, there's some buffering involved.
Any ideas how to get rid of that exception without having to increase akka.http.host-connection-pool.response-entity-subscription-timeout?
Instead of merging the processing of downloaded files into one stream with flatMapConcat you could try materializing the stream within the outer stream and fully process it there before emitting your output downstream. Then you shouldn't begin downloading (and fully processing) the next object until you're ready.
Generally you want to avoid having too many stream materializations to reduce overhead, but I suspect that would be negligible for an app performing network I/O like this.
Let me know if something like this works: (warning: untested)
S3.listBucket("<bucket>", Some("<common_prefix>"))
.mapAsync(1) { result =>
val contents = S3.download("<bucket>", r.key)
.via(Compression.gunzip())
.via(Framing.delimiter(ByteString("\n"), Int.MaxValue))
.map(_.utf8String)
.to(Sink.seq)(Keep.right)
.run()
contents
}
.mapConcat(identity)
.runForeach { x => println(x) }
I want to offer to queue a string sent in load request after some initial delay say 10 seconds.
If the subsequent request is made with some short interval delay(1 second) then everything works fine, but if it is made continuously like from a script then there is no delay.
Here is the sample code.
def load(randomStr :String) = Action { implicit request =>
Source.single(randomStr)
.delay(10 seconds, DelayOverflowStrategy.backpressure)
.map(x =>{
println(x)
queue.offer(x)
})
.runWith(Sink.ignore)
Ok("")
}
I am not entirely sure that this is the correct way of doing what you want. There are some things you need to reconsider:
a delayed source has an initial buffer capacity of 16 elements. You can increase this with addAttributes(initialBuffer)
In your case the buffer cannot actually become full because every time you provide just one element.
Who is the caller of the Action? You are defining a DelayOverflowStrategy.backpressure strategy but is the caller able to handle this?
On every call of the action you are creating a Stream consisting of one element, how is the backpressure here helping? It is applied on the stream processing and not on the offering to the queue
I am trying to test run semi integration test with actors, that involve persisting to the db. the fooActor is adding kids to the db. but I have to wait till the persistence to the db will be completed using Thread.sleep :
"persist kids" in {
fooActor ! addChildToParent(bar,foo)
expectMsg("done")
fooActor ! addChildToParent(buz,foo)
expectMsg("done")
Thread.sleep(2000)
suggestionActor ! GetChildListForParent(foo)
expectMsg(
Some(List(bar,buz))
)
}
well this works fine, but I hate the fact that I have to use the Tread.sleep(2000). is there a way to minimize this effect ?
To minimize the effect, you could use awaitAssert
awaitAssert {
suggestionActor ! GetChildListForParent(foo)
expectMsg(
Some(List(bar,buz))
)
}
This awaitAssert retries the given block as long as the expected message is not received. It continues retrying until either the block does not throw an exception (in which case the test succeeds) or until the max duration expires (in which case the test fails). The max duration and interval are optional arguments of awaitAssert.
I've some sporadic test failures and struggle to figure out why. I have a bunch of actors which to the work which I want to test. At the beginning of the test I pass in an actor reference which I get from a TestProbe(). Later on the group of actors do some work and send the result to the given test probe actor reference. Then I check the result with the TestProbe():
class MyCaseSpec extends Spec with ShouldMatchers{
describe("The Thingy"){
it("should work"){
val eventListener = TestProbe()
val myStuffUnderTest = Actor.actorOf(new ComplexActor(eventListener.ref)).start();
myStuffUnderTest ! "Start"
val eventMessage = eventListener.receiveOne(10.seconds).asInstanceOf[SomeEventMessage]
eventMessage.data should be ("Result")
}
}
}
Now once in a while the test fails. And when I look through the stack trace I see that I got a 'ActorInitializationException' when sending a message to the test probe actor. However at no point in time I stop the TestProbe actor.
Here's the exception:
[akka:event-driven:dispatcher:global-11] [LocalActorRef] Actor has not been started, you need to invoke 'actor.start()' before using it
akka.actor.ActorInitializationException: Actor has not been started, you need to invoke 'actor.start()' before using it
[Gamlor-Laptop_c15fdca0-219e-11e1-9579-001b7744104e]
at akka.actor.ScalaActorRef$class.$bang(ActorRef.scala:1399)
at akka.actor.LocalActorRef.$bang(ActorRef.scala:605)
at akka.mobile.client.RemoteMessaging$RemoteMessagingSupervision$$anonfun$receive$1.apply(RemoteMessaging.scala:125)
at akka.mobile.client.RemoteMessaging$RemoteMessagingSupervision$$anonfun$receive$1.apply(RemoteMessaging.scala:121)
at akka.actor.Actor$class.apply(Actor.scala:545)
....
I'm wondering if I'm missing something obvious or am I making a subtle mistake? Or maybe something is really going wrong inside my code and I can't see it?
I'm on Akka 1.2.
Update for Vitors-Comment. At line 125 I send a message to an actor with the !-operator. Now in the test-setup thats the TestProbe actor-reference. And I can't figure out why sometimes the TestProbe actor seems to be stopped.
protected def receive = {
case msg: MaximumNumberOfRestartsWithinTimeRangeReached => {
val lastException = msg.getLastExceptionCausingRestart
faultHandling ! ConnectionError(lastException, messages.toList, self) // < Line 125. The faultHandling is the TestProbe actor
become({
// Change to failure-state behavior
}
// Snip
Anyway, I'm trying to isolate the problem further for the time being. Thanks for any hint / idea.
You are not starting your actor here. I'm not sure why your test is working some of the time. The code above needs to have the following line modified with an .start()
val myStuffUnderTest = Actor.actorOf(new ComplexActor(eventListener.ref)).start();
Ok, almost certainly found the issue =). TestProbes do have a timeout: When nothing happens after 5 seconds, they stop them self.
Now unfortunately the test takes just a little longer than 5 seconds: In that time the test-probe may stop itself all ready, which then causes the test to fail.
Fixing it is easy, increase the timeout on the TestProbe:
val errorHandler = ignoreConnectionMsgProbe()
errorHandler.setTestActorTimeout(20.seconds)