Should I log requests info (client ip, request status code, execution time etc.) in my web app into the database to analyse users behavoir and arised errors? And what info log for better experience?
Its often tempting to log lots of information, however I usually find that when I come to use it to answer a question it's often the case that the wrong piece of information has been recorded or only partially. Or it has been recorded but has not been stored in a usable way and takes further programming to turn the log into meaningful information.
So I would start with the question of what you want to see/find and log accordingly. Generally then logging capability can be expanded in the future as new issues/insights are required.
remember every time you log something you are slowing your application down. You are also using more disk space, no one is going to thank you for buying more disk / longer backups just because you have logged everything on every action.
I guess I would follow a train of thought a bit like:
1) What are you trying to find, if its an error you can predict then why not cater for it in your code to start with. If its usability what format does the data need to be in at at what points should it be recorded.
2) How long do you need it for, be sure to purge the logs after a period to conserve disk space.
3) Every element stored is a performance hit, might be small but for high number of transactions it adds up.
4) Be wary of privacy rules, an IP address may be considered as identifiable data, in which case you need to publish a data privacy policy (see point 2).
5) Consider using a flag to control logging on or off. Then you can use it at times of a known issue but not record everything always when not needed.
Related
I have a web service sitting on IIS that has been quite happy for months but now I'm getting timeouts and I don't know how to diagnose what the problem is.
The client sends up basic information in a 'heartbeat' message to IIS which then updates this in a SQL database (on a different server). There are 250 clients in the wild, all sending up their heartbeat every 5 minutes ... so there's only 250 rows in the table, with appropriate indexing on the column being used for the update.
Ordinarily it only takes 50-100ms to do the update, but since last week you can see that the response time in the IIS log has increased and I'm also getting timeouts too.
Nothing has changed with the setup so I don't know what I'm looking for to determine the reason. The error I get back is:
System.ServiceModel.FaultException: An error occurred while updating
the entries. See the inner exception for details.An error occurred
while updating the entries. See the inner exception for
details.Execution Timeout Expired. The timeout period elapsed prior to
completion of the operation or the server is not responding. The
statement has been terminated.The wait operation timed out
Any advice on where to start looking? I did enable the failed request log trace in IIS but I don't know what it all means if I'm perfectly honest. The difference between a successful requiest and a failed one is that the request log stops after the 'AspNetStart' entry.
Thanks!
Mark
There are lots of reasons a service can gradually or suddenly become slow. Poor code structure can lead to things like memory leaks on the server, small enough they don't really show up or cause problems during testing, but when run over weeks/months start to stack up. Unauthorized requests could be targeting your server if this is a public-facing service, or has a link to public-facing services.
Things to look at:
Does this happen at certain times of the day or throughout the day?
Is this a load issue that starts occurring when multiple users are sending updates concurrently? 250 users isn't a lot. Has the # of users grown over the last few months or has it been relatively stable since the start?
What is the memory and CPU usage looking like on the Web server(s) and DB server?
This is the first clue to check to see if either server is under considerable load. From there you can investigate why it might be under load or if it possibly needs a bit more grunt to deal with the load. Look at the running processes. If these servers are managed by an IT department or such some culprits can include things like Virus Scanners hogging resources. (I.e. policy changes in the last few months have lead to additional load on the servers)
What recovery model is your database set up for?
What is the size of your Tx Log (.mdx file)
Do you have a regular scheduled database backup and index maintenance?
This is one that new projects tend to forget. An empty database is small and has no Tx Log history being recorded, but as it runs over time that Tx Log grows silently in the background, especially with Full recovery. Larger Tx Logs can lead to slower performance over time especially if the log file needs to be enlarged. A good thing to check is whether the log file is set to grow by a # of bytes or percentage. Percentage is I believe the default but this can cause exponential "grow" time/space issues so it's better to set it to a fixed size per grow. You'll want regular backups being done that allow the Tx Log to reset. Ideally don't shrink the file if the Log size between backups stays consistent.
How many records across all tables are being inserted or updated in a given day?
This is important to build a picture of how much the database will be tracking through the day between backups. You may have 250 clients, but every heartbeat is potentially updating a row and inserting others.
What are you using for PKs for inserted records? (Ints vs. UUIDs) If using UUIDs are you using NEWSEQUENTIALID() or NEWID()/Guid.New()?
GUIDs can be a time bomb for indexing if done poorly. A GUID combined with NEWID() or Guid.New() will lead to considerable index fragmentation when inserting rows. Provided the GUIDs are not visible to clients you should use NEWSEQUENTIALID(). If IDs are set via code then there are implementations you can find to generate sequential GUIDs. (It's a matter of re-arranging the parts that make up the GUID) Regular index maintenance is a requirement for using UUID columns in indexed fields.
Are you using Dependency Injection in your web service?
What is the lifetime scope of the DbContexts performing the updates?
This is a potential time bomb for web servers if the lifetime scope for a DbContext is set up incorrectly. You want a DbContext to be alive for no longer than it is needed. At a maximum the lifetime scope should be set to PerRequest. A DbContext set up for Singleton for instance would be tracking entities across requests. The more entities a DbContext is tracking, the slower read and update operations become. This would be a possible culprit if the web server memory usage is climbing.
Are you running an SQL Profiler?
In a test environment with nothing else touching the database, running scenarios through the application with an SQL Profiler can reveal potential issues such as unexpected queries being kicked off due to things like lazy loading. For one operation you might expect one or a small number of queries to be run, only to find dozens or even hundreds. Multiply this across concurrent requests and you have a recipe for the database server to say "Just sit down and wait, dammit!" :) Any queries you don't expect based on the code that is running should be investigated for either eager loading relationships or implementing projection. (Recommended for best performance)
Do the web servers get restarted periodically?
For some tricky to debug issues and memory leaks, sometimes the easiest "fix" is to schedule regular restarts of the web server. It's a hack, but compared to the considerable cost of trying to track down memory leaks or fix up inefficient code that slows down over time, it is a cheap and effective fix. (At least while you do research options to address the issues and optimize the code)
That should give you a start into things to check with the service & database.
All transaction managers (Atomikos, Bitronix, IBM WebSphere TM etc) save some "transaction logs" into 'tranlogs' folder to file system.
When something terrible happens and server gets down sometimes tranlogs become broken.
They require some manual recovery procedure.
I've been told that by simply clearing broken tranlogs folder I risk to have an inconsistent state of resources that participated in transactions.
As a "dumb" developer I feel more comfortable with simple concepts. I want to think that distributed transaction management should be alike the regular transaction management:
If something went wrong at any party (network, app error, timeout) - I expect the whole multi-resource transaction not to be committed in any part of it. All leftovers should be cleaned up sooner or later automatically.
If transaction managers fails (file system fault, power supply fault) - I expect all the transactions under this TM to be rollbacked (apparently, at DB timeout level).
File storage for tranlogs is optional if I don't want to have any automatic TX recovery (whatever it would mean).
Questions
Why can't I think like this? What's so complicated about 2PC?
What are the exact risks when I clear broken tranlogs?
If I am wrong and I really need all the mess with 2PC file system state. Don't you feel sick about the fact that TX manager can actually break storage state in an easy and ugly manner?
When I was first confronted with 2 phase commit in real life in 1994 (initially on a larger Oracle7 environment), I had a similar initial reaction. What a bloody shame that it is not generally possible to make it simple. But looking back at algorithm books of university, it become clear that there is no general solution for 2PC.
See for instance how to come to consensus in a distributed environment
Of course, there are many specific cases where a 2PC commit of a transaction can be resolved more easy to either complete or roll back completely and with less impact. But the general problem stays and can not be solved.
In this case, a transaction manager has to decide at some time what to do; a transaction can not remain open forever. Therefor, as an ultimate solution they will always need to have go back to their own transaction logs, since one or more of the other parties may not be able to reliably communicate status now and in the near future. Some transaction managers might be more advanced and know how to resolve some cases more easily, but the need for an ultimate fallback stays.
I am sorry for you. Fixing it generally seems to be identical to "Falsity implies anything" in binary logic.
Summarizing
On Why can't I think like this? and What's so complicated about 2PC: See above. This algorithmetic problem can't be solved universally.
On What are the exact risks when I clear broken tranlogs?: the transaction manager has some database backing it. Deleting translogs is the same problem in general relational database software; you loose information on the transactions in process. Some db platforms can still have somewhat or largely integer files. For background and some database theory, see Wikipedia.
On Don't you feel sick about the fact that TX manager can actually break storage state in an easy and ugly manner?: yes, sometimes when I have to get a lot of work done by the team, I really hate it. But well, it keeps me having a job :-)
Addition: to 2PC or not
From your addition I understand that you are thinking whether or not to include 2PC in your projects.
In my opinion, your mileage may vary. Our company has as policy for 2PC: avoid it whenever possible. However, in some environments and especially with legacy systems and complex environments such a found in banking you can not work around it. The customer requires it and they may be not willing to allow you to perform a major change in other infrastructural components.
When you must do 2PC: do it well. I like a clean architecture of the software and infrastructure, and something that is so simple that even 5 years from now it is clear how it works.
For all other cases, we stay away from two phase commit. We have our own framework (Invantive Producer) from client, to application server to database backend. In this framework we have chosen to sacrifice elements of ACID when normally working in a distributed environment. The application developer must take care himself of for instance atomicity. Often that is possible with little effort or even doesn't require thinking about. For instance, all software must be safe for restart. Even with atomicity of transactions this requires some thinking to do it well in a massive multi user environment (for instance locking issues).
In general this stupid approach is very easy to understand and maintain. In cases where we have been required to do two phase commit, we have been able to just replace some plug-ins on the framework and make some changes to client-side code.
So my advice would be:
Try to avoid 2PC.
But encapsulate your transaction logic nicely.
Allowing to do 2PC without a complete rebuild, but only changing things where needed.
I hope this helps you. If you can tell me more about your typical environments (size in #tables, size in GB persistent data, size in #concurrent users, typical transaction mgmt software and platform) may be i can make some additions or improvements.
Addition: Email and avoiding message loss in 2PC
Regarding whether suggesting DB combining with JMS: No, combining DB with JMS is normally of little use; it will itself already have some db, therefor the original question on transaction logs.
Regarding your business case: I understand that per event an email is sent from a template and that the outgoing mail is registered as an event in the database.
This is a hard nut to crack; I've been enjoying doing security audits and one of the easiest security issues to score was checking use of email.
Email - besides not being confidential and tampersafe in most situations like a postcard - has no guarantees for delivery and/or reading without additional measures. For instance, even when email is delivered directly between your mail transfer agent and the recipient, data loss can occur without the transaction monitor being informed. That even gets worse when multiple hops are involved. For instance, each MTA has it's own queueing mechanism on which a "bomb can be dropped" leading to data loss. But you can also think of spam measures, bad configuration, mail loops, pressing delete file by accident, etc. Even when you can register the sending of the email without any loss of transaction information using 2PC, this gives absolutely no clue on whether the email will arrive at all or even make it across the first hop.
The company I work for sells a large software package for project-driven businesses. This package has an integrated queueing mechanism, which also handles email events. Typically combined in most implementation with Exchange nowadays. A few months we've had a nice problem: transaction started, opened mail channel, mail delivered to Exchange as MTA, register that mail was handled... transaction aborted, since Oracle tablespace full. On the next run, the mail was delivered again to Exchange, again abort, etc. The algorithm has been enhanced now, but from this simple example you can see that you need all endpoints to cooperate in your 2PC, even when some of the endpoints are far away in an organisation receiving and displaying your email.
If you need measures to ensure that an email is delivered or read, you will need to supplement it by additional measures. Please pick one of application controls, user controls and process controls from literature.
I have an asp.net-mvc website and people manage a list of projects. Based on some algorithm, I can tell if a project is out of date. When a user logs in, i want it to show the number of stale projects (similar to when i see a number of updates in the inbox).
The algorithm to calculate stale projects is kind of slow so if everytime a user logs in, i have to:
Run a query for all project where they are the owner
Run the IsStale() algorithm
Display the count where IsStale = true
My guess is that will be real slow. Also, on everything project write, i would have to recalculate the above to see if changed.
Another idea i had was to create a table and run a job everything minutes to calculate stale projects and store the latest count in this metrics table. Then just query that when users log in. The issue there is I still have to keep that table in sync and if it only recalcs once every minute, if people update projects, it won't change the value until after a minute.
Any idea for a fast, scalable way to support this inbox concept to alert users of number of items to review ??
The first step is always proper requirement analysis. Let's assume I'm a Project Manager. I log in to the system and it displays my only project as on time. A developer comes to my office an tells me there is a delay in his activity. I select the developer's activity and change its duration. The system still displays my project as on time, so I happily leave work.
How do you think I would feel if I receive a phone call at 3:00 AM from the client asking me for an explanation of why the project is no longer on time? Obviously, quite surprised, because the system didn't warn me in any way. Why did that happen? Because I had to wait 30 seconds (why not only 1 second?) for the next run of a scheduled job to update the project status.
That just can't be a solution. A warning must be sent immediately to the user, even if it takes 30 seconds to run the IsStale() process. Show the user a loading... image or anything else, but make sure the user has accurate data.
Now, regarding the implementation, nothing can be done to run away from the previous issue: you will have to run that process when something that affects some due date changes. However, what you can do is not unnecessarily run that process. For example, you mentioned that you could run it whenever the user logs in. What if 2 or more users log in and see the same project and don't change anything? It would be unnecessary to run the process twice.
Whatsmore, if you make sure the process is run when the user updates the project, you won't need to run the process at any other time. In conclusion, this schema has the following advantages and disadvantages compared to the "polling" solution:
Advantages
No scheduled job
No unneeded process runs (this is arguable because you could set a dirty flag on the project and only run it if it is true)
No unneeded queries of the dirty value
The user will always be informed of the current and real state of the project (which is by far, the most important item to address in any solution provided)
Disadvantages
If a user updates a project and then upates it again in a matter of seconds the process would be run twice (in the polling schema the process might not even be run once in that period, depending on the frequency it has been scheduled)
The user who updates the project will have to wait for the process to finish
Changing to how you implement the notification system in a similar way to StackOverflow, that's quite a different question. I guess you have a many-to-many relationship with users and projects. The simplest solution would be adding a single attribute to the relationship between those entities (the middle table):
Cardinalities: A user has many projects. A project has many users
That way when you run the process you should update each user's Has_pending_notifications with the new result. For example, if a user updates a project and it is no longer on time then you should set to true all users Has_pending_notifications field so that they're aware of the situation. Similarly, set it to false when the project is on time (I understand you just want to make sure the notifications are displayed when the project is no longer on time).
Taking StackOverflow's example, when a user reads a notification you should set the flag to false. Make sure you don't use timestamps to guess if a user has read a notification: logging in doesn't mean reading notifications.
Finally, if the notification itself is complex enough, you can move it away from the relationship between users and projects and go for something like this:
Cardinalities: A user has many projects. A project has many users. A user has many notifications. A notifications has one user. A project has many notifications. A notification has one project.
I hope something I've said has made sense, or give you some other better idea :)
You can do as follows:
To each user record add a datetime field sayng the last time the slow computation was done. Call it LastDate.
To each project add a boolean to say if it has to be listed. Call it: Selected
When you run the Slow procedure set you update the Selected fileds
Now when the user logs if LastDate is enough close to now you use the results of the last slow computation and just take all project with Selected true. Otherwise yourun again the slow computation.
The above procedure is optimal, becuase it re-compute the slow procedure ONLY IF ACTUALLY NEEDED, while running a procedure at fixed intervals of time...has the risk of wasting time because maybe the user will neber use the result of a computation.
Make a field "stale".
Run a SQL statement that updates stale=1 with all records where stale=0 AND (that algorithm returns true).
Then run a SQL statement that selects all records where stale=1.
The reason this will work fast is because SQL parsers, like PHP, shouldn't do the second half of the AND statement if the first half returns true, making it a very fast run through the whole list, checking all the records, trying to make them stale IF NOT already stale. If it's already stale, the algorithm won't be executed, saving you time. If it's not, the algorithm will be run to see if it's become stale, and then stale will be set to 1.
The second query then just returns all the stale records where stale=1.
You can do this:
In the database change the timestamp every time a project is accessed by the user.
When the user logs in, pull all their projects. Check the timestamp and compare it with with today's date, if it's older than n-days, add it to the stale list. I don't believe that comparing dates will result in any slow logic.
I think the fundamental questions need to be resolved before you think about databases and code. The primary of these is: "Why is IsStale() slow?"
From comments elsewhere it is clear that the concept that this is slow is non-negotiable. Is this computation out of your hands? Are the results resistant to caching? What level of change triggers the re-computation.
Having written scheduling systems in the past, there are two types of changes: those that can happen within the slack and those that cause cascading schedule changes. Likewise, there are two types of rebuilds: total and local. Total rebuilds are obvious; local rebuilds try to minimize "damage" to other scheduled resources.
Here is the crux of the matter: if you have total rebuild on every update, you could be looking at 30 minute lags from the time of the change to the time that the schedule is stable. (I'm basing this on my experience with an ERP system's rebuild time with a very complex workload).
If the reality of your system is that such tasks take 30 minutes, having a design goal of instant gratification for your users is contrary to the ground truth of the matter. However, you may be able to detect schedule inconsistency far faster than the rebuild. In that case you could show the user "schedule has been overrun, recomputing new end times" or something similar... but I suspect that if you have a lot of schedule changes being entered by different users at the same time the system would degrade into one continuous display of that notice. However, you at least gain the advantage that you could batch changes happening over a period of time for the next rebuild.
It is for this reason that most of the scheduling problems I have seen don't actually do real time re-computations. In the context of the ERP situation there is a schedule master who is responsible for the scheduling of the shop floor and any changes get funneled through them. The "master" schedule was regenerated prior to each shift (shifts were 12 hours, so twice a day) and during the shift delays were worked in via "local" modifications that did not shuffle the master schedule until the next 12 hour block.
In a much simpler situation (software design) the schedule was updated once a day in response to the day's progress reporting. Bad news was delivered during the next morning's scrum, along with the updated schedule.
Making a long story short, I'm thinking that perhaps this is an "unask the question" moment, where the assumption needs to be challenged. If the re-computation is large enough that continuous updates are impractical, then aligning expectations with reality is in order. Either the algorithm needs work (optimizing for local changes), the hardware farm needs expansion or the timing of expectations of "truth" needs to be recalibrated.
A more refined answer would frankly require more details than "just assume an expensive process" because the proper points of attack on that process are impossible to know.
I'm deploying the Apache Solr web app in two redundant Tomcat 6 servers,
to provide redundancy and improved availability. At this point, scalability is not a issue.
I have a load balancer that can dynamically route traffic to one server or the other or both.
I know that Solr supports master/slave configuration, but that requires manual recovery if the slave receives updates during the master outage (which it will in my use case).
I'm considering a simpler approach using the ability to reload a core:
- only one of the two servers is receiving traffic at any time (the "active" instance), but both are running,
- both instances share the same index data and
- before re-routing traffic due to an outage, the now active instance is told to reload the index core(s)
Limited testing of failovers with both index reads and writes has been successful. What implications/issues am I missing?
Your thoughts and opinions welcomed.
The simple approach to redundancy your considering seems reasonable but you will not be able to use it for disaster recovery unless you can share the data/index to/from a different physical location using your NAS/SAN.
Here are some suggestions:-
Make backups for disaster recovery and test those backups work as an index could conceivably have been corrupted as there are no checksums happening internally in SOLR/Lucene. An index could get wiped or some records could get deleted and merged away without you knowing it and backups can be useful for recovering those records/docs at a later time if you need to perform an investigation.
Before you re-route traffic to the second instance I would run some queries to load caches and also to test and confirm the current index works before it goes online.
Isolate the updates to one location and process and thread to ensure transactional integrity in the event of a cutover as it could be difficult to manage consistency as SOLR does not use a vector clock to synchronize updates like some databases. I personally would keep a copy of all updates in order separately from SOLR in some other store just in case a small time window needs to be repeated.
In general, my experience with SOLR has been excellent as long as you are not using cutting edge features and plugins. I have one instance that currently has 40 million docs and an uptime of well over a year with no issues. That doesn't mean you wont have issues but gives you an idea of how stable it could be.
I hardly know anything about Solr, so I don't know the answers to some of the questions that need to be considered with this sort of setup, but I can provide some things for consideration. You will have to consider what sorts of failures you want to protect against and why and make your decision based on that. There is, after all, no perfect system.
Both instances are using the same files. If the files become corrupt or unavailable for some reason (hardware fault, software bug), the second instance is going to fail the same as the first.
On a similar note, are the files stored and accessed in such a way that they are always valid when the inactive instance reads them? Will the inactive instance try to read the files when the active instance is writing them? What would happen if it does? If the active instance is interrupted while writing the index files (power failure, network outage, disk full), what will happen when the inactive instance tries to load them? The same questions apply in reverse if the 'inactive' instance is going to be writing to the files (which isn't particularly unlikely if it wasn't designed with this use in mind; it might for example update some sort of idle statistic).
Also, reloading the indices sounds like it could be a rather time-consuming operation, and service will not be available while it is happening.
If the active instance needs to complete an orderly shutdown before the inactive instance loads the indices (perhaps due to file validity problems mentioned above), this could also be time-consuming and cause unavailability. If the active instance can't complete an orderly shutdown, you're gonna have a bad time.
I have a web facing, anonymously accessible, blog directory and blogs and I would like to track the number of views each of the blog posts receives.
I want to keep this as simple as possible, accuracy need only be an approximation. This is not for analytics (we have Google for that) and I dont want to do any log analysis to pull out the stats as running background tasks in this environment is tricky and I want the numbers to be as fresh as possible.
My current solution is as follows:
A web control that simply records a view in a table for each GET.
Excludes a list of known web crawlers using a regex and UserAgent string
Provides for the exclusion of certain IP Addresses (known spammers)
Provides for locking down some posts (when the spammers come for it)
This actually seems to do a pretty good job, but a couple of things annoy me. The spammers still hit some posts, thereby skewing the Views. I still have to manually monitor the views an update my list of "bad" IP addresses.
Does anyone have some better suggestions for me? Anyone know how the views on StackOverflow questions are tracked?
It sounds like your current solution is actually quite good.
We implemented one where the server code which delivered the view content also updated a database table which stored the URL (actually a special ID code for the URL since the URL could change over time) and the view count.
This was actually for a system with user-written posts that others could comment on but it applies equally to the situation where you're the only user creating the posts (if I understand your description correctly).
We had to do the following to minimise (not eliminate, unfortunately) skew.
For logged-in users, each user could only add one view point to a post. EVER. NO exceptions.
For anonymous users, each IP address could only add one view point to a post each month. This was slightly less reliable as IP addresses could be 'shared' (NAT and so on) from our point of view. The reason we relaxed the "EVER" requirement above was for this sharing reason.
The posts themselves were limited to having one view point added per time period (the period started low (say, 10 seconds) and gradually increased (to, say, 5 minutes) so new posts were allowed to accrue views faster, due to their novelty). This took care of most spam-bots, since we found that they tend to attack long after the post has been created.
Removal of a spam comment on a post, or a failed attempt to bypass CAPTCHA (see below), automatically added that IP to the blacklist and reduced the view count for that post.
If a blacklisted IP hadn't tried to leave a comment in N days (configurable), it was removed from the blacklist. This rule, and the previous rule, minimised the manual intervention in maintaining the blacklist, we only had to monitor responses for spam content.
CAPTCHA. This solved a lot of our spam problems, especially since we didn't just rely on OCR-type things (like "what's this word -> 'optionally'); we actually asked questions (like "what's 2 multiplied by half of 8?") that break the dumb character recognition bots. It won't beat the hordes of cheap labour CAPTCHA breakers (unless their maths is really bad :-) but the improvements from no-CAPTCHA were impressive.
Logged-in users weren't subject to CAPTCHA but spam got the account immediately deleted, IP blacklisted and their view subtracted from the post.
I'm ashamed to admit we didn't actually discount the web crawlers (I hope the client isn't reading this :-). To be honest, they're probably only adding a minimal number of view points each month due to our IP address rule (unless they're swarming us with multiple IP addresses).
So basically, I'm suggested the following as possible improvements. You should, of course, always monitor how they go to see if they're working or not.
CAPTCHA.
Automatic blacklist updates based on user behaviour.
Limiting view count increases from identical IP addresses.
Limiting view count increases to a certain rate.
No scheme you choose will be perfect (e.g., our one month rule) but, as long as all posts are following the same rule set, you still get a good comparative value. As you said, accuracy need only be an approximation.
Suggestions:
Move the hit count logic from a user control into a base Page class.
Redesign the exclusions list to be dynamically updatable (i.e. store it in a database or even in an xml file)
Record all hits. On a regular interval, have a cron job run through the new hits and determine whether they are included or excluded. If you do the exclusion for each hit, each user has to wait for the matching logic to take place.
Come up with some algorithm to automatically detect spammers/bots and add them to your blacklist. And/Or subscribe to a 3rd party blacklist.