I'm currently developing a Camel Integration app in which resumption from a previous state of processing is important. When there's a power outage, for instance, it's important that all previously processed messages are not re-processed. The processing should resume from where it left off before the outage.
I've gone through a number of possible solutions including Terracotta and Apache Shiro. I'm not sure how to use either as documentation on the integration with Apache Camel is scarce. I've not settled on the two, however.
I'm looking for suggestions on the potential alternatives I can use or a pointer to some tutorial to get me started.
The difficulty in surviving outages lies primarily in state, and what to do with in-flight messages.
Usually, when you're talking state within routes the solution is to flush it to disk, or other nodes in the cluster. Taking the aggregator pattern as an example, aggregated state is persisted in an aggregation repository. The default implementation is in memory, so if the power goes out, all the state is lost. However, there are other implementations, including one for JDBC, and another using Hazelcast (a lightweight in-memory data grid). I haven't used Hazelcast myself, but JDBC does a synchronous write to disk. The aggregator pattern allows you to resume from where you left off. A similar solution exists for idempotent consumption.
The second question, around in-flight messages is a little more complicated, and largely depends on where you are consuming from. If you're in the middle of handling a web service request, and the power goes out, does it matter if you have lost the message? The user can simply retry. Any effects on external systems can be wrapped in a transaction, or an idempotent consumer with JDBC idempotent repository.
If you are building out integrations based on messaging, you should consume within a transaction, so that if your server goes down, the messages go back into the broker and can be replayed to another consumer.
Be careful when using seda: or threads blocks, these use an in-memory queue to pass exchanges between threads, any messages flowing down these sorts of routes will be lost if someone trips over the power cable. If you can't afford message loss, and need this sort of processing model, consider using a JMS queue as the endpoints between the two routes (with transactions to ensure you pick up where you left off).
Related
We are investigating Camel for use in a new system; one of our situations is that a set of steps is started, and some of the steps in the set can take hours or days to execute. We need to execute other steps after such long-elapsed-time steps are finished.
We also need to have the system survive reboot while some of the "routes" with these steps are in progress, i.e., the system might be rebooted, and we need the "routes" in progress to remain in their state and pick up where they left off.
I know we can use a queued messaging system such as JMS, and that messages put into such a queue can be handled to be persisted. What isn't clear to me is how (or whether) that fits into Camel -- would we need to treat the step(s) after each queue as its own route, so that it could, on startup, read from the queue? That's going to split up our processing steps into many more 'routes' than we would have otherwise, but maybe that's the way it's done.
Is/are there Camel construct/constructs which assist with this kind of system? If I know their terms and basic outline, I can probably figure it out, but what I really need is an explanation of what the constructs do.
Camel is not a human workflow / long-lasting tasks system. For that kind look at BPMS systems. Camel is more fitting for real time / near real time integrations.
For long tasks you persist their state in some external system like a message broker or database or BPMS, and then you can use Camel routes to process and move from one state to the next - or where Camel fit in such as integrating with the many different systems you can do OOTB with the 200+ Camel components.
Camel do provide graceful shutdown so you can safely shutdown or reboot Camel. But in the unlikely event of a crash, you may want to look at transactions and idempotency if you are talking about surviving a system crash.
You are referring to asynchronous processing of messages in routes. Camel has a couple of components that you can use to achieve this.
SEDA: In memory not persistent and can only call end points in the same route.
VM: In memory not persistent and can call endpoints in different camel contexts but limited to the same JVM. This component is a extension of SEDA.
JMS: Persistence is configurable on the queue stack. Much more heavy weight but also more fault tolerant than SEDA/JVM.
SEDA/JVM can be used as low overhead replacements for JMS components and in some cases I would use them exclusively. In your case the persistence element is a required so SEDA/JVM is not an option, but to keep things simple the examples will use SEDA as you can get some basics up and running quickly.
The example will assume the following we have a timer that kicks off and then there is two processes it needs to run. See screenshot below:
In this route the message flow is synchronous between the timer and the two process beans.
If we wanted to make these steps asynchronous we would need to break each step into a route of its own. We would then connect these routes using one of the components listed in the beginning. See the screenshot below:
Notice we have three routes each route only has one "processing" step in it. Route Test only has a timer which fires a messages to the SEDA queue called processOne. This message is received on the SEDA queue and sent to the Process_One bean. After this it is the send to the SEDA queue called processTwo, where it is received and passed to the Process_Two bean. All this is done asynchronously.
You can replace the SEDA components with JMS once you get to understand the concepts. I suspect that state tracking is going to be the most complicated part as Camel makes the asynchronous part easy.
I am implementing a callback in java to store messages in a database. I have a client subscribing to '#'. But the problem is when this # client disconnects and reconnect it adds duplicate entries in the database of retained messages. If I search for previous entries bigger tables will be expensive in computing power. So should I allot a separate table for each sensor or per broker. I would really appreciate if you suggest me better designs.
Subscribing to wildcard with a single client is definitely an anti-pattern. The reasons for that are:
Wildcard subscribers get all messages of the MQTT broker. Most client libraries can't handle that load, especially not when transforming / persisting messages.
If you wildcard subscriber dies, you will lose messages (unless the broker queues endlessly for you, which also doesn't work)
You essentially have a single point of failure in your system. Use MQTT brokers which are hardened for production use. These are much more robust single point of failures than your hand-written clients. (You can overcome the SIP through clustering and load balancing, though).
So to solve the problem, I suggest the following:
Use a broker which can handle shared subscriptions (like HiveMQ or MessageSight), so you can balance all messages between many clients
Use a custom plugin for doing the persistence at the broker instead of the client.
You can also read more about that topic here: http://www.hivemq.com/blog/mqtt-sql-database
Also consider using QoS = 3 for all message to make sure one and only one message is delivered. Also you may consider time-stamp each message to avoid inserting duplicate messages if QoS requirement is not met.
Let's say I have a Job Scheduler which has 4 consumers A, B, C and D. Jobs of type X will have to be routed to Consumer A, type Y to Consumer B and so on. Consumers A, B, C and D are to run as independent applications without any dependency, either locally or remotely.
The consumers take varying times to complete their jobs, which are subsequently routed to the Job Scheduler for aggregation.
Clones of one of the consumers may also be needed to share its eligible jobs. A job should however be processed only once.
Is Content-based router the best solution for this? Mind you, I need the custom job scheduler, because it only has the intelligence to split up a job among the consumers.
Or is there any better way to handle this? I don't require those features of the broker like automatically switching over to another consumer (load balancing) and such in case of a failure.
I'm not completly sure that I follow you. This sounds like a rather straight forward scenario for asychronous processing.
I'm not sure how you plan to send these jobs to the Camel application, but given you can receive them somewhere you could probably go ahead with a simple content based router.
Given your requirements for the consumers, I would go for JMS queues (using Apache ActiveMQ or similar broker middleware), one queue per job type. This makes it easy to distribute consumers to different machines without really changing the code.
// Central node routes
from("xxx:routeJob")
.choice()
.when(header("type").isEqualTo("x"))
.to("jms:queue:processJobTypeX")
.when(header("type").isEqualTo("y"))
.to("jms:queue:processJobTypeY")
.otherwise()
.to("jms:queue:processJobTypeZ");
from("jms:queue:aggregateJob")
.bean(aggregate);
// different camel application (may be duplicated for multiple instances).
from("jms:queue:processJobTypeX")
.bean(heavyProcessing)
.to("jms:queue:aggregateJob");
// Yet another camel application
from("jms:queue:processJobTypeY")
.bean(lightProcessing)
.to("jms:queue:aggregateJob");
Please revisit your question for a better answer :)
Scenario
The DB for an application has gone down. This results in any actor responsible for committing important data to the DB failing to get a connection
Preferred Behaviour
The important data is written to the db when it comes back up sometime in the future.
Current Implementation
The actor catches the DBException, wraps the data in a DBWriteFailed case class, and sends the message to its supervisor. The supervisor then schedules another write for sometime in the future (e.g. 1 minute) using system.scheduler.scheduleOnce(...) so that we don't spin in circles too much while waiting for the DB to come back up.
This implementation certainly works but I feel there might be a better way.
The protocol gets a bit messier when the committing actor has to respond to the original sender after a successful commit.
The regular flow of messages to the committing actor is not throttled in any way and the actor will happily process the new messages, likely failing to connect to the DB for each and every one of them.
If messages get caught in this retry loop for too long, the mailboxes of the committing actors will start to balloon. It is important that this data be committed, but none of it matters if the application crawls to a halt or crashes due to excessive memory usage.
I am an akka novice and I am largely inexperienced when it comes to supervisor strategies, but I feel as though I may be able to leverage one of those to handle some of this retry logic.
Is there a common approach in akka for solving a problem like this? Am I on the right track or should I be heading in a different direction?
Any help is appreciated.
You can use Akka Circuit Breaker to reduce connection attempts. Instead of using the scheduler as retry queue I would use a buffer (with max size limit) inside the actor and retry those when circuit breaker becomes closed again (onClose callback should send message to self actor). An alternative could be to combine the circuit breaker with a stashing mailbox.
If you're planning to implement full failover in your app
Don't.
Do not bubble database failover responsibility up into the app layer. As far as your app is concerned, the database should just be up and ready to accept reads and writes.
If your database goes down often, spend time making your database more robust (there's a multitude of resources on the web already for this: search the web for terms like 'replication', 'high availability', 'load-balancing' and 'clustering', and learn from the war stories of others at highscalability.com). It all really depends on what the cause of your DB outages are (e.g. I once maxed out the NIC on the DB master, and "fixed" the problem intermittently by enabling GZIP on the wire).
You'll be glad you adhered to a separation of concerns if you go down this route.
If you're planning to implement the odd sprinkling of retry logic and handling DB brown-outs
If you're not expecting your app to become a replacement database, then Patrik's answer is the best way to go.
I have a distributed application consisting of 8 servers, all running .NET windows services. Each service polls the database for work packages that are available.
The polling mechanism is important for other reasons (too boring for right now).
I'm thinking that this polling mechanism would be best implemented in a queue as the .NET services will all be polling the database regularly and when under load I don't want deadlocks.
I'm thinking I would want each .NET service to put a message into an input queue. The database server would pop each message of the input queue one at a time, process it, and put a reply message on another queue.
The issue I am having is that most examples of SQL Server Broker (SSB) are between database services and not initiated from a .NET client. I'm wondering if SQL Server Broker is just the wrong tool for this job. I see that the broker T-SQL DML is available from .NET but the way I think this should work doesn't seem to fit with SSB.
I think that I would need a single SSB service with 2 queues (in and out) and a single activation stored procedure.
This doesn't seem to be the way SSB works, am I missing something ?
You got the picture pretty much right, but there are some missing puzzle pieces in that picture:
SSB is primarily a communication technology, designed to deliver messages across the network with exactly-once-in-order semantics (EOIO), in a fully transactional fashion. It handles network connectivity (authentication, traffic confidentiality and integrity) and acknowledgement and retry logic for transmission.
Internal Activation is an unique technology in that it eliminates the requirement for a resident service to poll the queue. Polling can never achieve the dynamic balance needed for low latency and low resource consumption under light load. Polling forces either high latency (infrequent polling to save resources) or high resource utilization (frequent polling required to provide low latency). Internal activation also has self-tunning capability to ramp up more processors to answer to spikes in load (via max_queue_readers) while at the same time still being capable of tuning down the processing under low load, by deactivating processors. One of the often overlooked advantages of the Internal Activation mechanism is the fact that is fully contained within a database, ie. it fails over with a cluster or database mirroring failover, and it travels with the database in backups and copy-attach operations. There is also an External Activation mechanism, but in general I much more favor the internal one for anything that fits an internal context (Eg. not and HTTP request, that must be handled outside the engine process...)
Conversation Group Locking is again unique and is a means to provide exclusive access to correlated message processing. Application can take advantage by using the conversation_group_id as a business logic key and this pretty much completely eliminates deadlocks, even under heavy multithreading.
There is also one issue which you got wrong about Service Broker: the need to put a response into a separate queue. Unlike most queueing products with which you may be familiar, SSB primitive is not the message but a 'conversation'. A conversation is a fully duplex, bidirectional communication channel, you can think of it much like a TCP socket. An SSB service does not need to 'put responses in a queue' but instead it can simply send a response on the conversation handle of the received message (much like how you would respond in a TCP socket server by issue a send on the same socket you got the request from, not by opening a new socket and sending a response). Furthermore SSB will take care of the inherent message correlation so that the sender will know exactly the response belong to which request it sent, since the response will come back on the same conversation handle the request was sent on (much like in a TCP socket case the client receives the response from the server on the same socket it sent the request on). This conversation handle is important again when it comes to the correlation locking of related conversation groups, see the link above.
You can embed .Net logic into Service Broker processing via SQLCLR. Almost all SSB applciations have a non-SSB service at at least one end, directly or indirectly (eg. via a trigger), a distributed application entirely contained in the database is of little use.