Related
We have a micro-services architecture, with Kafka used as the communication mechanism between the services. Some of the services have their own databases. Say the user makes a call to Service A, which should result in a record (or set of records) being created in that service’s database. Additionally, this event should be reported to other services, as an item on a Kafka topic. What is the best way of ensuring that the database record(s) are only written if the Kafka topic is successfully updated (essentially creating a distributed transaction around the database update and the Kafka update)?
We are thinking of using spring-kafka (in a Spring Boot WebFlux service), and I can see that it has a KafkaTransactionManager, but from what I understand this is more about Kafka transactions themselves (ensuring consistency across the Kafka producers and consumers), rather than synchronising transactions across two systems (see here: “Kafka doesn't support XA and you have to deal with the possibility that the DB tx might commit while the Kafka tx rolls back.”). Additionally, I think this class relies on Spring’s transaction framework which, at least as far as I currently understand, is thread-bound, and won’t work if using a reactive approach (e.g. WebFlux) where different parts of an operation may execute on different threads. (We are using reactive-pg-client, so are manually handling transactions, rather than using Spring’s framework.)
Some options I can think of:
Don’t write the data to the database: only write it to Kafka. Then use a consumer (in Service A) to update the database. This seems like it might not be the most efficient, and will have problems in that the service which the user called cannot immediately see the database changes it should have just created.
Don’t write directly to Kafka: write to the database only, and use something like Debezium to report the change to Kafka. The problem here is that the changes are based on individual database records, whereas the business significant event to store in Kafka might involve a combination of data from multiple tables.
Write to the database first (if that fails, do nothing and just throw the exception). Then, when writing to Kafka, assume that the write might fail. Use the built-in auto-retry functionality to get it to keep trying for a while. If that eventually completely fails, try to write to a dead letter queue and create some sort of manual mechanism for admins to sort it out. And if writing to the DLQ fails (i.e. Kafka is completely down), just log it some other way (e.g. to the database), and again create some sort of manual mechanism for admins to sort it out.
Anyone got any thoughts or advice on the above, or able to correct any mistakes in my assumptions above?
Thanks in advance!
I'd suggest to use a slightly altered variant of approach 2.
Write into your database only, but in addition to the actual table writes, also write "events" into a special table within that same database; these event records would contain the aggregations you need. In the easiest way, you'd simply insert another entity e.g. mapped by JPA, which contains a JSON property with the aggregate payload. Of course this could be automated by some means of transaction listener / framework component.
Then use Debezium to capture the changes just from that table and stream them into Kafka. That way you have both: eventually consistent state in Kafka (the events in Kafka may trail behind or you might see a few events a second time after a restart, but eventually they'll reflect the database state) without the need for distributed transactions, and the business level event semantics you're after.
(Disclaimer: I'm the lead of Debezium; funnily enough I'm just in the process of writing a blog post discussing this approach in more detail)
Here are the posts
https://debezium.io/blog/2018/09/20/materializing-aggregate-views-with-hibernate-and-debezium/
https://debezium.io/blog/2019/02/19/reliable-microservices-data-exchange-with-the-outbox-pattern/
first of all, I have to say that I’m no Kafka, nor a Spring expert but I think that it’s more a conceptual challenge when writing to independent resources and the solution should be adaptable to your technology stack. Furthermore, I should say that this solution tries to solve the problem without an external component like Debezium, because in my opinion each additional component brings challenges in testing, maintaining and running an application which is often underestimated when choosing such an option. Also not every database can be used as a Debezium-source.
To make sure that we are talking about the same goals, let’s clarify the situation in an simplified airline example, where customers can buy tickets. After a successful order the customer will receive a message (mail, push-notification, …) that is sent by an external messaging system (the system we have to talk with).
In a traditional JMS world with an XA transaction between our database (where we store orders) and the JMS provider it would look like the following: The client sets the order to our app where we start a transaction. The app stores the order in its database. Then the message is sent to JMS and you can commit the transaction. Both operations participate at the transaction even when they’re talking to their own resources. As the XA transaction guarantees ACID we’re fine.
Let’s bring Kafka (or any other resource that is not able to participate at the XA transaction) in the game. As there is no coordinator that syncs both transactions anymore the main idea of the following is to split processing in two parts with a persistent state.
When you store the order in your database you can also store the message (with aggregated data) in the same database (e.g. as JSON in a CLOB-column) that you want to send to Kafka afterwards. Same resource – ACID guaranteed, everything fine so far. Now you need a mechanism that polls your “KafkaTasks”-Table for new tasks that should be send to a Kafka-Topic (e.g. with a timer service, maybe #Scheduled annotation can be used in Spring). After the message has been successfully sent to Kafka you can delete the task entry. This ensures that the message to Kafka is only sent when the order is also successfully stored in application database. Did we achieve the same guarantees as we have when using a XA transaction? Unfortunately, no, as there is still the chance that writing to Kafka works but the deletion of the task fails. In this case the retry-mechanism (you would need one as mentioned in your question) would reprocess the task an sends the message twice. If your business case is happy with this “at-least-once”-guarantee you’re done here with a imho semi-complex solution that could be easily implemented as framework functionality so not everyone has to bother with the details.
If you need “exactly-once” then you cannot store your state in the application database (in this case “deletion of a task” is the “state”) but instead you must store it in Kafka (assuming that you have ACID guarantees between two Kafka topics). An example: Let’s say you have 100 tasks in the table (IDs 1 to 100) and the task job processes the first 10. You write your Kafka messages to their topic and another message with the ID 10 to “your topic”. All in the same Kafka-transaction. In the next cycle you consume your topic (value is 10) and take this value to get the next 10 tasks (and delete the already processed tasks).
If there are easier (in-application) solutions with the same guarantees I’m looking forward to hear from you!
Sorry for the long answer but I hope it helps.
All the approach described above are the best way to approach the problem and are well defined pattern. You can explore these in the links provided below.
Pattern: Transactional outbox
Publish an event or message as part of a database transaction by saving it in an OUTBOX in the database.
http://microservices.io/patterns/data/transactional-outbox.html
Pattern: Polling publisher
Publish messages by polling the outbox in the database.
http://microservices.io/patterns/data/polling-publisher.html
Pattern: Transaction log tailing
Publish changes made to the database by tailing the transaction log.
http://microservices.io/patterns/data/transaction-log-tailing.html
Debezium is a valid answer but (as I've experienced) it can require some extra overhead of running an extra pod and making sure that pod doesn't fall over. This could just be me griping about a few back to back instances where pods OOM errored and didn't come back up, networking rule rollouts dropped some messages, WAL access to an aws aurora db started behaving oddly... It seems that everything that could have gone wrong, did. Not saying Debezium is bad, it's fantastically stable, but often for devs running it becomes a networking skill rather than a coding skill.
As a KISS solution using normal coding solutions that will work 99.99% of the time (and inform you of the .01%) would be:
Start Transaction
Sync save to DB
-> If fail, then bail out.
Async send message to kafka.
Block until the topic reports that it has received the
message.
-> if it times out or fails Abort Transaction.
-> if it succeeds Commit Transaction.
I'd suggest to use a new approach 2-phase message. In this new approach, much less codes are needed, and you don't need Debeziums any more.
https://betterprogramming.pub/an-alternative-to-outbox-pattern-7564562843ae
For this new approach, what you need to do is:
When writing your database, write an event record to an auxiliary table.
Submit a 2-phase message to DTM
Write a service to query whether an event is saved in the auxiliary table.
With the help of DTM SDK, you can accomplish the above 3 steps with 8 lines in Go, much less codes than other solutions.
msg := dtmcli.NewMsg(DtmServer, gid).
Add(busi.Busi+"/TransIn", &TransReq{Amount: 30})
err := msg.DoAndSubmitDB(busi.Busi+"/QueryPrepared", db, func(tx *sql.Tx) error {
return AdjustBalance(tx, busi.TransOutUID, -req.Amount)
})
app.GET(BusiAPI+"/QueryPrepared", dtmutil.WrapHandler2(func(c *gin.Context) interface{} {
return MustBarrierFromGin(c).QueryPrepared(db)
}))
Each of your origin options has its disadvantage:
The user cannot immediately see the database changes it have just created.
Debezium will capture the log of the database, which may be much larger than the events you wanted. Also deployment and maintenance of Debezium is not an easy job.
"built-in auto-retry functionality" is not cheap, it may require much codes or maintenance efforts.
I have a service A and a service B.
The service A is a REST API that stores some relevant information, that the sevice B needs, in a database.
The service B handles a lot of traffic and is constantly consuming messages from a Kafka topic. Each message needs some information from the service A. But this information rarely changes, at most it changes a time per day.
So, in order to avoid hitting the REST API constantly for information that rarely changes, i'm going to implement a cache. (Not using a cache would give also the problem of querying the DB all the time). And the service B will hit the cache first, and if it doesn't have the required data it will only hit A once.
Here comes the question.
If the service A updates its information, i would need to update the cache right away.
What is the best way of doing this?
1) I can implement something in the REST API to let B notice that it needs to update his chache, but in terms of separation of concerns and encapsulation, isn't bad that A knows that B handles an internal cache? (I think it is)
2) I can implement a pool in B (and make B check if the info changed every X time) or get the cache updated every X time. But this way i have the risk of not getting the information updated right away.
3) Maybe a cache in A for this information? At least i avoid querying the DB, but not hitting the API :/
Is there a better way of handling this?
Thanks!
This is a question of consistency guarantees and it is a core issue in distributed systems.
Your scenario contains three services: A, B and the database.
If B must never ever under any circumstances use stale data, then you have two options:
All reads will hit the database (no caching at A or B). Built in mechanisms at the database, such as the database's internal cache, disk cache and RAID mirroring, might relief some of the disk I/O bottleneck.
Cache the data at A (or B) and enforce strong consistency between the cache and the database, which means that every write would be done inside a distributed transaction between the database and the cache (or by using some other consensus protocol which provides strong consistency guarantees)
The first option requires no effort, and would work fine for a certain workload, but would become a serious bottleneck if the data ingress at B requires more throughput that the database can withhold.
The second option is quite complex to implement, would slow down data changes complicate the system and hurt its overall availability: if A goes down then data cannot be changed at the database; it a goes down amidst a transaction then the data won't be available for reading from the database (!)
The good news is that most systems don't need such strong consistency guarantees, and they're OK with using stale data occasionally, under specific circumstances.
If this is the case for your system, then there are several ways of invalidating the cache. Personally I'd go with Jose Martinez's suggestion to use a message queueing system, combined with the Publish/Subscribe pattern: service B would publish a "data changed" message to the pub/sub (the message would include information as to what data item changed exactly), service A would be a subscriber processing "data changed" messages and invalidating its cache as they arrive.
Additional points:
Caching inside B might seem like it can provide strong consistency at first, but truth is you might need to scale B so you'll have multiple instances of B, each with its own cache that needs be invalidated and synchronized.
You may use a whole other service for holding the cached data (Redis, Memcached etc.), which would allow you to split he responsibilities over the cached data (B could invalidate it and A could be reading from it directly), but it won't change the essence of the consistency dilemma.
Adding a third bullet point to #CapnSchwenk's answer...
Have A submit all changes to a message queue, like Rabbit MQ. The message queue can handle persistence (in case B is down), and publisher design model implementation. The queue can also contain the new data so that B need not have to query A for the new data.
Based on this statement: "If the service A updates its information, i would need to update the cache right away", then your 2 choices in my experience would be some form of distributed cache:
Have service A provide a listener mechanism that Service B can subscribe to, to invalidate its own internal cache when data changes;
Implement a distributed caching layer such as ehcache or memcache that both Service A and B are aware of; when Service A updates it writes the new value into the cache and all subscribers are automatically updated
Hope that helps!
Anyone know of a message bus implementation which offers granular control over consistency guarantees? Full ACID is too slow and no ACID is too wrong.
We're currently using Rhino ESB wrapping MSMQ for our messaging. When using durable, transactional messaging with distributed transactions, MSMQ can block the commit for considerable time while it waits on I/O completion.
Our messages fall into two general categories: business logic and denormalisation. The latter account for a significant percentage of message bus traffic.
Business logic messages require the guarantees of full ACID and MSMQ has proven quite adequate for this.
Denormalisation messages:
MUST be durable.
MUST NOT be processed until after the originating transaction completes.
MAY be processed multiple times.
MAY be processed even if the originating transaction rolls back, as long as 2) is adhered to.
(In some specific cases the durability requirements could probably be relaxed, but identifying and handling those cases as exceptions to the rule adds complexity.)
All denormalisation messages are handled in-process so there is no need for IPC.
If the process is restarted, all transactions may be assumed to have completed (committed or rolled back) and all denormalisation messages not yet processed must be recovered. It is acceptable to replay denormalisation messages which were already processed.
As far as I can tell, messaging systems which deal with transactions tend to offer a choice between full ACID or nothing, and ACID carries a performance penalty. We're seeing calls to TransactionScope#Commit() taking as long as a few hundred milliseconds in some cases depending on the number of messages sent.
Using a non-transactional message queue causes messages to be processed before their originating transaction completes, resulting in consistency problems.
Another part of our system which has similar consistency requirements but lower complexity is already using a custom implementation of something akin to a transaction log, and generalising that for this use case is certainly an option, but I'd rather not implement a low-latency, concurrent, durable, transactional messaging system myself if I don't have to :P
In case anyone's wondering, the reason for requiring durability of denormalisation messages is that detecting desyncs and fixing desyncs can be extremely difficult and extremely expensive respectively. People do notice when something's slightly wrong and a page refresh doesn't fix it, so ignoring desyncs isn't an option.
It's not exactly the answer you're looking for, but Jonathan Oliver has written extensively on how to avoid using distributed transactions in messaging and yet maintain transactional integrity:
http://blog.jonathanoliver.com/2011/04/how-i-avoid-two-phase-commit/
http://blog.jonathanoliver.com/2011/03/removing-2pc-two-phase-commit/
http://blog.jonathanoliver.com/2010/04/idempotency-patterns/
Not sure if this helps you but, hey.
It turns out that MSMQ+SQL+DTC don't even offer the consistency guarantees we need. We previously encountered a problem where messages were being processed before the distributed transaction which queued them had been committed to the database, resulting in out-of-date reads. This is a side-effect of using ReadCommitted isolation to consume the queue, since:
Start transaction A.
Update database table in A.
Queue message in A.
Request commit of A.
Message queue commits A
Start transaction B.
Read message in B.
Read database table in B, using ReadCommitted <- gets pre-A data.
Database commits A.
Our requirement is that B's read of the table block on A's commit, which requires Serializable transactions, which carries a performance penalty.
It looks like the normal thing to do is indeed to implement the necessary constraints and guarantees oneself, even though it sounds like reinventing the wheel.
Anyone got any comments on this?
If you want to do this by hand, here is a reliable approach. It satisfies (1) and (2), and it doesn't even need the liberties that you allow in (3) and (4).
Producer (business logic) starts transaction A.
Insert/update whatever into one or more tables.
Insert a corresponding message into PrivateMessageTable (part of the domain, and unshared, if you will). This is what will be distributed.
Commit transaction A. Producer has now simply and reliably performed its writes including the insertion of a message, or rolled everything back.
Dedicated distributer job queries a batch of unprocessed messages from PrivateMessageTable.
Distributer starts transaction B.
Mark the unprocessed messages as processed, rolling back if the number of rows modified is different than expected (two instances running at the same time?).
Insert a public representation of the messages into PublicMessageTable (a publically exposed table, in whatever way). Assign new, strictly sequential Ids to the public representations. Because only one process is doing these inserts, this can be guaranteed. Note that the table must be on the same host to avoid 2PC.
Commit transaction B. Distributor has now distributed each message to the public table exactly once, with strictly sequantial Ids.
A consumer (there can be several) queries the next batch of messages from PublicMessageTable with Id greater than its own LastSeenId.
Consumer starts transaction C.
Consumer inserts its own representation of the messages into its own table ConsumerMessageTable (thus advancing LastSeenId). Insert-ignore can help protect against multiple instances running. Note that this table can be in a completely different server.
Commit transaction C. Consumer has now consumed each message exactly once, in the same order the messages were made publically available, without ever skipping a message.
We can do whatever we want based on the consumed messages.
Of course, this requires very careful implementation.
It is even suitable for database clusters, as long as there is only a single write node, and both reads and writes perform causality checks. It may well be that having one of these is sufficient, but I'd have to consider the implications more carefully to make that claim.
I have just downloaded joliver eventstore and looking to wire up a service bus with Windows Service Bus 1.0 for an application separated across more than one Bounded Context process.
If a bounded context has been offline whilst events in other bounded contexts have been created (or may even be a new context that has been deployed), I can see the following sequence of events.
For an example ContextA, ContextB and ContextC, all connected using Service Bus 1.0 and each context with their own event store, they all share the same bus messaging backplane.
ContextC goes offline.
When ContextC comes back-up, other bounded contexts need to be notified of the events that need to be resent to the context that has just come back online. These events are replayed from each of the event stores.
My questions are:
The above scenario would apply to any event sourcing libraries, so is there any infrastructure code on top of this I can use, or do I have to roll my own?
With Windows Service Bus 1.0, how do I marry sequence numbers in my event store to sequence numbers on the Service Bus?
What is the best practice to detect and handle events that have already been received in a safe manner (protecting against message handlers failing)?
The above scenario would apply to any event sourcing libraries, so is there any infrastructure code on top of this I can use, or do I have to roll my own?
The notion of a Projection mechanism tied to the events is certainly common. Unfortunately, there are many many ways of handling how that might be done, depending on your stack, performance requirements and scale and many other factors.
As a result I'm not aware of a commoditized facility of this nature.
The GetEventStore store has an integrated Projection facility which looks extremely powerful and takes the need to build all this off the table. Before its existence, I'd have argued that one shouldnt even consider looking past the the SRPness of the JOES.
You havent said much about your actual stack other than mentioning Azure.
With Windows Service Bus, how do I marry sequence numbers in my event store to sequence numbers on the Service Bus?
You can use stream id + the commit sequence number the MessageId (and use that to ensure duplicates are removed by the bus). You will probably also include properties in the Message metadata.
What is the best practice to detect and handle events that have already been received in a safe manner (protecting against message handlers failing)?
If you're on Azure and considering ServiceBus then the Topics can be used to ensure at least once delivery (and you'll use the sessioning facility). Go watch the two hour deep dive ClemensV Subscribe video plus a few other episodes or you'll spent the same amount of time making mistakes)
To keep broadcast traffic down, if ContextC requests replays from ContextA and ContextB, is there any way for these replay messages to be sent only to ContextC? Or should I not worry about this?
Mu. You started off asking whether this stuff was a good idea but now seem to have baked in an assumption that it's the way to go.
Firstly, this infrastructure is a massive wheel to reinvent. Have you considered simply setting up a topic per BC and having anyone that needs to listen listen?
A key thing here is that you need to bear in mind the fact that just because you can think of cases where BCs need to consume each others events, that this central magic bus that's everywhere will deliver everything everywhere.
EDIT: Answers to your edited versions of questions 2+
With Windows Service Bus 1.0, how do I marry sequence numbers in my event store to sequence numbers on the Service Bus?
Your event store doesnt have a sequence number. It has a commit sequence number per aggregate. You'd typically use a sessioned topic and subscription. Then you need to choose whether you want a global ordering (use a single session id) or per aggregate ordering (use the stream id as the session id).
Once events are on a topic, they have a MessageSequenceNumber and the subscription (when sessioned) delivers (actually the subscriber recieves them) them in sequence.
What is the best practice to detect and handle events that have already been received in a safe manner (protecting against message handlers failing)?
This is built into the Service Bus (or any queueing mechanism). You don't mark the Message completed until it has been successfully processed. Any failure leads to Abandonment (which puts it back on the queue for reprocessing).
The subscriber taking a break, becoming disconnected or work backing up is naturally dealt with by the Topic.
I have been experimenting with JOliver's Event Store 3.0 as a potential component in a project and have been trying to measure the throughput of events through the Event Store.
I started using a simple harness which essentially iterated through a for loop creating a new stream and committing a very simple event comprising of a GUID id and a string property to a MSSQL2K8 R2 DB. The dispatcher was essentially a no-op.
This approach managed to achieve ~3K operations/second running on an 8 way HP G6 DL380 with the DB on a separate 32 way G7 DL580. The test machines were not resource bound, blocking looks to be the limit in my case.
Has anyone got any experience of measuring the throughput of the Event Store and what sort of figures have been achieved? I was hoping to get at least 1 order of magnitude more throughput in order to make it a viable option.
I would agree that blocking IO is going to be the biggest bottleneck. One of the issues that I can see with the benchmark is that you're operating against a single stream. How many aggregate roots do you have in your domain with 3K+ events per second? The primary design of the EventStore is for multithreaded operations against multiple aggregates which reduces contention and locks for read-world applications.
Also, what serialization mechanism are you using? JSON.NET? I don't have a Protocol Buffers implementation (yet), but every benchmark shows that PB is significantly faster in terms of performance. It would be interesting to run a profiler against your application to see where the biggest bottlenecks are.
Another thing I noticed was that you're introducing a network hop into the equation which increases latency (and blocking time) against any single stream. If you were writing to a local SQL instance which uses solid state drives, I could see the numbers being much higher as compared to a remote SQL instance running magnetic drives and which have the data and log files on the same platter.
Lastly, did your benchmark application use System.Transactions or did it default to no transactions? (The EventStore is safe without use of System.Transactions or any kind of SQL transaction.)
Now, with all of that being said, I have no doubt that there are areas in the EventStore that could be dramatically optimized with a little bit of attention. As a matter of fact, I'm kicking around a few backward-compatible schema revisions for the 3.1 release to reduce the number writes performed within SQL Server (and RDBMS engines in general) during a single commit operation.
One of the biggest design questions I faced when starting on the 2.x rewrite that serves as the foundation for 3.x is the idea of async, non-blocking IO. We all know that node.js and other non-blocking web servers beat threaded web servers by an order of magnitude. However, the potential for complexity introduced on the caller is increased and is something that must be strongly considered because it is a fundamental shift in the way most programs and libraries operate. If and when we do move to an evented, non-blocking model, it would be more in a 4.x time frame.
Bottom line: publish your benchmarks so that we can see where the bottlenecks are.
Excellent question Matt (+1), and I see Mr Oliver himself replied as the answer (+1)!
I wanted to throw in a slightly different approach that I myself am playing with to help with the 3,000 commits-per-second bottleneck you are seeing.
The CQRS Pattern, that most people who use JOliver's EventStore seem to be attempting to follow, allows for a number of "scale out" sub-patterns. The first one people usually queue off is the Event commits themselves, which you are seeing a bottleneck in. "Queue off" meaning offloaded from the actual commits and inserting them into some write-optimized, non-blocking I/O process, or "queue".
My loose interpretation is:
Command broadcast -> Command Handlers -> Event broadcast -> Event Handlers -> Event Store
There are actually two scale-out points here in these patterns: the Command Handlers and Event Handlers. As noted above, most start with scaling out the Event Handler portions, or the Commits in your case to the EventStore library, because this is usually the biggest bottleneck due to the need to persist it somewhere (e.g. Microsoft SQL Server database).
I myself am using a few different providers to test for the best performance to "queue up" these commits. CouchDB and .NET's AppFabric Cache (which has a great GetAndLock() feature). [OT]I really like AppFabric's durable-cache features that lets you create redundant cache servers that backup your regions across multiple machines - therefore, your cache stays alive as long as there is at least 1 server up and running.[/OT]
So, imagine your Event Handlers do not write the commits to the EventStore directly. Instead, you have a handler insert them into a "queue" system, such as Windows Azure Queue, CouchDB, Memcache, AppFabric Cache, etc. The point is to pick a system with little to no blocks to queue up the events, but something that is durable with redundancy built-in (Memcache being my least favorite for redundancy options). You must have that redundancy, in the case that if a server drops, you still have the event queued up.
To finally commit from this "Queued Event", there are several options. I like Windows Azure's Queue pattern for this, because of the many "workers" you can have constantly looking for work in the queue. But it doesn't have to be Windows Azure - I've mimicked Azure's Queue pattern in local code using a "Queue" and "Worker Roles" running in background threads. It scales really nicely.
Say you have 10 workers constantly looking into this "queue" for any User Updated events (I usually write a single worker role per Event type, makes scaling out easier as you get to monitor the stats of each type). Two events get inserted into the queue, the first two workers instantly pick up a message each, and insert them (Commit them) directly into your EventStore at the same time - multithreading, as Jonathan mentioned in his answer. Your bottleneck with that pattern would be whatever database/eventstore backing you select. Say your EventStore is using MSSQL and the bottleneck is still 3,000 RPS. That is fine, because the system is built to 'catch up' when those RPS drops down to, say 50 RPS after a 20,000 burst. This is the natural pattern CQRS allows for: "Eventual Consistency."
I said there was other scale-out patterns native to the CQRS patterns. Another, as I mentioned above, is the Command Handlers (or Command Events). This is one I have done as well, especially if you have a very rich domain domain as one of my clients does (dozens of processor-intensive validation checks on every Command). In that case, I'll actually queue off the Commands themselves, to be processed in the background by some worker roles. This gives you a nice scale out pattern as well, because now your entire backend, including the EvetnStore commits of the Events, can be threaded.
Obviously, the downside to that is that you loose some real-time validation checks. I solve that by usually segmenting validation into two categories when structuring my domain. One is Ajax or real-time "lightweight" validations in the domain (kind of like a Pre-Command check). And the others are hard-failure validation checks, that are only done in the domain but not available for realtime checking. You would then need to code-for-failure in Domain model. Meaning, always code for a way out if something fails, usually in the form of a notification email back to the user that something went wrong. Because the user is no longer blocked by this queued Command, they need to be notified if the command fails.
And your validation checks that need to go to the 'backend' is going to your Query or "read-only" database, riiiight? Don't go into the EventStore to check for, say, a unique Email address. You'd be doing your validation against your highly-available read-only datastore for the Queries of your front end. Heck, have a single CouchDB document be dedicated to only a list of all email addresses in the system as your Query portion of CQRS.
CQRS is just suggestions... If you really need realtime checking of a heavy validation method, then you can build a Query (read-only) store around that, and speed up the validation - on the PreCommand stage, before it gets inserted into the queue. Lots of flexibility. And I would even argue that validating things like empty Usernames and empty Emails is not even a domain concern, but a UI responsiblity (off-loading the need to do real-time validation in the domain). I've architected a few projects where I had very rich UI validation on my MVC/MVVM ViewModels. Of course my Domain had very strict validation, to ensure it is valid before processing. But moving the mediocre input-validation checks, or what I call "light-weight" validation, up into the ViewModel layers gives that near-instant feedback to the end-user, without reaching into my domain. (There are tricks to keep that in sync with your domain as well).
So in summary, possibly look into queuing off those Events before they are committed. This fits nicely with EventStore's multi-threading features as Jonathan mentions in his answer.
We built a small boilerplate for massive concurrency using Erlang/Elixir, https://github.com/work-capital/elixir-cqrs-eventsourcing using Eventstore. We still have to optimize db connections, pooling, etc... but the idea of having one process per aggregate with multiple db connections is aligned with your needs.