We have a Azure service fabric micro-service which listen to multiple azure service bus topics(Topic A, Topic B).
Topic A has more then 10 times message traffic then topic B. and to handle the scale-ability of service we will create the multiple instance of service.
My first question is, In most of the services instance will not get the message in Topic B, As Topic B has less traffic, So will it be waste of resources ?
2 Is it better to create different micro-services for Topic A and Topic B listeners, and create 10x instance of micro-service which listen to topic A and x instance of topic B listener service ?
Is create a message listener in azure service bus, keep on pulling message every time ? means continuously looking/ checking for message, message is there or not.
Thanks Guys for your supports.
If one service receives messages from 2 topics, there's little waste of resources. Listening for messages is not a very resource intensive process.
This depends on your application requirements.
This depends on whether you are using SBMP / SOAP (default) or AMQP as the communication protocol. AMQP is connection based. SBMP does (long) polling.
Microservices advocates the idea of loosely coupled services, where each micro-service will handle his own domain.
Following the microservices approach, if you understand that you had to create two different topics to publish your messages, probably it is because they have different scopes\domain, needing their own micro-service.
In your description it is hard to identify if the domain of TopicA and TopicB are related, so we can not offer a good suggestion.
In any case, if one service listen for both topics, let's assume TopicA handles 1000 messages and TopicB handles 100 per second.
In case you have to publish a new version of your application to handle changes on TopicB messages, you would have to stop the handling of TopicA, that was not necessary. So you are coupling the services, that to begin with should be two independent services, or both topics should be handle as a single one.
Regarding your questions:
1 My first question is, In most of the services instance will not get
the message in Topic B, As Topic B has less traffic, So will it be
waste of resources ?
Waste of resources is relative how you design your application, it might be if your service listen the queue\topic and handle it at the same time, and uses too much memory to keep running all the time. In this scenario, would be case to split them and make a Queue\Topic Listener and other Message Handler that will receive the message to process, and if it keep too long without processing messages you shut it down, leaving just the listener. You could also use actors instead of a service.
2 Is it better to create different micro-services for Topic A and
Topic B listeners, and create 10x instance of micro-service which
listen to topic A and x instance of topic B listener service ?
Yes for the services, regarding the the number of instances, it should be driven by the size of the queue, otherwise you would have too much listeners and also wasting resources, if you follow the approach of splitting the services, you would need one listener receiving the messages from the queue\topic and it would delivery the messages to multiple messages handlers(service instances\actors) and the queue\topic listener control the number of running instances at same time.
3 Is create a message listener in azure service bus, keep on pulling
message every time ? means continuously looking/ checking for message,
message is there or not.
Is not the only approach, but it's correct.
Related
I'm using:
Azure platform to run some microservice architecture software solution.
microservices are using the Azure-EventHub for communicating in special cases.
Kubernetes with 2 clusters (primary, secondary)
per application namespace, there is 1 event-listener pod running per cluster for consuming from eventhub
The last point is relevant to my current problem:
The load balancers will share traffic between the primary and secondary clusters. This means that 2 event-listener-pods are running per application at the same time. So they are just reacting to events but some times they are consuming the same event from the event hub and this causes some duplicated notification mails.
So finally my question is: How can I avoid reading the same event twice the same time? I thought event hub index is always increasing but starting at the same moment is not "secured".
You will need to use separate consumer groups per pod to avoid EPOCH error.
That said, both pods will read the same events, so you have two options.
Have an active-passive set up. One consumer group, one pod that reads the events and delegates the work out on each event. If that pod fails, then a health/heart beat mechanism brings the second pod online.
Have an active-active set up. Two consumer groups, two active pods. You will need to implement idempotent processing.
Idempotent processing, where processing the same message multiple times produces the same result, is good practice regardless of approach. This would allow you to replay batches of events in which one errored and not have adverse affects on the integrity of your data.
I would opt for the first option, a single event hub reader will process thousands of events per second and pass off the work to your micro services.
If you have lower volumes of messages and need guaranteed message processing, then using Service Bus may be a better choice where messages can be locked, completed and abandoned.
I am now working on the application saving data into the database using the REST API. The basic flow is: REST API -> object -> save to database. I wanted to introduce the queue to the application, having in mind the idea of the producer and consumer being a part of one, abovementioned application.
Is it possible for the Node.js application to act as both producer and consumer of the queue? Knowing that Node.js is single-threaded language, does it give me any other choice instead of creating two applications - one producing to the queue and the second one - waiting actively for messages in a queue and saving to the database?
Also, the requirement here would be for an application to process any item that hasn't been acknowledged on the queue on the restart. That also makes me think that the 'two applications' architecture is the best idea here.
Thank you for the help.
Yes, nodejs is able to do that and is well suited for every I/O intensive application use case. The point here is "what are you trying to achieve"? message queues are meant to make different applications communicate together, while if you need an in-process event bus is a total overkill. There are many easier and efficient ways to propagate messages between decoupled components of the same nodejs app; one of these way is EventEmitter that let your components collaborate in a pubsub fashion
If you are convinced that an AMQP broker is you solution, you just need to
Define a "producer" class that publishes data on an exchange myExchange
Define a "consumer" queue that declares a queue myQueue
Create a binding at application startup between myExchange and myQueue, based on some routing key. Then, when a message is received from "consumer" you need to acknowledge after db saving. When a message is acked, it will be destroyed since it's already been consumed. You can decide, after an error, to recover the message via NACK
There are nodejs libraries that make code easier, such as Rascal
Short answer: YES and use two separate connections for publishing and consuming
Is it possible for the NodeJS application to act as both producer and consumer of the queue?
I would even state that it is a good usecase matching extremely well with NodeJS philosophy and threading mechanism.
Knowing that Node.js is single-threaded language, does it give me any other choice instead of creating two applications - one producing to the queue and the second one - waiting actively for messages in a queue and saving to the database?
You can have one application handling both, just be aware that if your client is publish too fast for the server to handle, RabbitMQ can apply back pressure on the TCP connection, thus consuming on a back-pressured TCP connection would greatly affect consumer performance.
I'm having an application where I map devices from the physical world to Reliable Actors in Azure Fabric. Each time I receive a message from a device, I want to push a message to an event hub.
What I'm doing right now is creating/using/closing the EventHubClient object for each message.
This is very inefficient (it takes about 1500ms) but it solves an issue I had in the past where I was keeping the EventHubClient in memory. When I have a lot of devices, the underlying virtual machine can quickly run out of network connections.
I'm thinking about creating a new actor that would be responsible for pushing data to the EventHub (by keeping the EventHubClient alive). Because of the turned based concurrency model of Reliable Actors, I'm not sure it's a good idea. If I get 10 000 devices pushing data "at the same time", each of their actors will block to push the message to the new actor that pushes message to the EventHub.
What is the recommended approach for this scenario ?
Thanks,
One approach would be to create a stateless service that is responsible for pushing messages to the EventHub. Each time an Actor receives a message from the device (by the way, how are they communicating with actors?) the Actor calls the stateless service. The stateless service in turn would be responsible for creating, maintining and disposing of one EventHubClient per service. Reliable Service would not introduce the same 'overhead' when it comes to handling incoming messages as a Reliable Actor would. If it is important for your application that the messages reach the EventHub in strictly the same order that they were produced in then you would have to do this with a Stateful Service and a Reliable Queue. (Note, this there is on the other hand no guarantee that Actors would be able to finish handling incoming messages in the same order as they are produced)
You could then fine tune-tune the solution by experimenting with the instance count (https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/service-fabric/service-fabric-availability-services) to make sure you have enough instances to handle the throughput of incoming messages. How many instances are roughly determined by the number of nodes and cores per node, although other factors may also affect.
Devices communicate with your Actors, the Actors in turn communicate with the Service (may be Stateless or Stateful if you want to queue message, see below), each Service manages an EventHubClient that can push messages to the EventHub.
If your cluster is unable to support an instance count for this service that is high enough (a little simplified: more instances = higher throughput), then you may need to create it as a Stateful Service instead and put messages in a Reliable Queue in the Service and then have the the RunAsync for the Service processing the queue in order. This could take the pressure of peaks in performance.
The Service Fabric Azure-Samples WordCount shows how you work with different Partitions to make the messages from Actors target different instances (or really partitions).
A general tip would be to not try to use Actors for everything (but for the right things they are great and reduces complexity a lot), the Reliable Services model support a lot more scenarios and requirements and could really complement your Actors (rather than trying to make Actors do something they are not really designed for).
You could use a pub/sub pattern here (use the BrokerService).
By decoupling event publishing from event processing, you don't need to worry about the turn based concurrency model.
Publishers:
The Actor sends out messages by simply publishing them to a BrokerService.
Subscribers
Then you use one or more Stateless Services or (different) Actors as subscribers of the events.
They would send them into EventHub in their own pace.
Event Hub Client
Using this approach you'd have full control over the EventHubClient instance counts and lifetimes.
You could increase event processing power by simply adding more subscribers.
In my opinion you should directly call from your actors the event hub in a background thread with an internal memory queue. You should aggregate messages and use SendBatch to improve performance.
The event hub is able to receive the load by himself.
I was using AzureQueue to communicate between roles. My messages like "GoToMaintenanceMode", "StopSendingEmails", "DoNotAcceptRequests" etc. But I realized that, it won't work for my scenario when I have multiple instances due to queue message will shows up only 1 instance at a time.
So my question is beside the options below is there an elegant way to handle this issue something like Role.AllInstances.Run() etc.?
the method I'm using it right now:
instance peeks the message, adds it's own instance id to the message and puts it back to the queue, and does not peek the message if it contains it's own instance id.
P.S. I do not want to implement TCP listener, asking for native solution if there is one.
You could use Windows Azure Service Bus Topics/Subscriptions instead of queues. They support multicasting (i.e. multiple receivers).
A short how-to guide can be found here
http://www.windowsazure.com/en-us/develop/net/how-to-guides/service-bus-topics/
Basically, your queue would become a Topic all your instances would become Subscriber to the Topic.
As you do not want TCP listener option or Service bus option. How about extending your same idea with multiple queues. Instance1 will read from Queue1 and Instance2 will read from Queue2 and so on. The only thing you need to handle is the number of queues and simultaneous adding of queue messages to all the queues.
If there are no longer any publishers or subscribers reading nor writing to a Queue, Topic, or Subscription, because of crashes or other abnormal terminations (instance restart, etc.), is that Queue/Topic/Subscription effectively orphaned?
I tested this by creating a few Queues, and then terminating the applications. Those Queues were still on the Service Bus a long time later. It seems that they will just stay there forever. That would be wonderful if we WANTED that behavior, but in this case, we do not.
How can we detect and delete these Queues, Topics, and Subscriptions? They will count towards Azure limits, etc, and we cannot have these orphaned processes every time an instance is restarted/patched/crashes.
If it helps make the question clearer, this is a unique situation in which the Queues/Topics/Subscriptions have special names, or special Filters, and a very limited set of publishers (1) and subscribers (1) for a limited time. This is not a case where we want survivability. These are instance-specific response channels. Whether we use Queues or Subscriptions is immaterial. If the instance is gone, so is the need for that Queue (or Subscription).
This is part of a solution where each web role has a dedicated response channel that it monitors. At any time, this web role may have dozens of requests pending via other messaging channels (Queues/Topics), and it is waiting for the answers on multiple threads. We need the response to come back to the thread that placed the message, so that the web role can respond to the caller. It is no good in this situation to simply have a Subscription based on the machine, because it will be receiving messages for other threads. We need each publishing thread to establish a dedicated response channel, so that the only thing on that channel is the response for that thread.
Even if we use Subscriptions (with some kind of instance-related filter) to do a long-polling receive operation on the Subscription, if the web role instance dies, that Subscription will be orphaned, correct?
This question can be boiled down like so:
If there are no more publishers or subscribers to a Queue/Topic/Subscription, then that service is effectively orphaned. How can those orphans be detected and cleaned up?
In this scenario you are looking for the Queue/Subscriptions to be "dynamic" in nature. They would be created and removed based on use as opposed to the current explicit provisioning model for these entities. Service Bus provides you with the APIs to perform create/delete operations so you can plug these on role OnStart/OnStop events appropriately. If those operations fail for some reason then the orphaned entities will exist. Again you can run clean up operation on them based on some unique identifier for the name of the entities. An example of this can be seen here: http://windowsazurecat.com/2011/08/how-to-simplify-scale-inter-role-communication-using-windows-azure-service-bus/
In the near future we will add more metadata and query capabilities to Queues/Topics/Subscriptions so you can see when they were last accessed and make cleanup decisions.
Service Bus Queues are built using the “brokered messaging” infrastructure designed to integrate applications or application components that may span multiple communication protocols, data contracts, trust domains, and/or network environments. The allows for a mechanism to communicate reliably with durable messaging.
If a client (publisher) sends a message to a service bus queue and then crashes the message will be stored on the Queue until as consumer reads the message off the queue. Also if your consumer dies and restarts it will just poll the queue and pick up any work that is waiting for it (You can scale out and have multiple consumers reading from queue to increase throughput), Service Bus Queues allow you to decouple your applications via durable cloud gateway analogous to MSMQ on-premises (or other queuing technology).
What I'm really trying to say is that you won't get an orphaned queue, you might get poisoned messages that you will need to handled, this blog post gives some very detailed information re: Service Bus Queues and their Capacity and Quotas which might give you a better understanding http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windowsazure/hh767287.aspx
Re: Queue Management, you can do this via Visual Studio (1.7 SDK & Tools) or there is an excellent tool called Service Bus Explorer that will make your life easier for queue managagment: http://code.msdn.microsoft.com/windowsazure/Service-Bus-Explorer-f2abca5a
*Note the default maximum number of queues is 10,000 (per service namespace, this can be increased via a support call)
As Abhishek Lai mentioned there is no orphan detecting capability supported.
Orphan detection can be implement externally in multiple ways.
For example, whenever you send/receive a message, update a timestamp in an SQL database to indicate that the queue/tropic/subscription is still active. This timestamp can then be used to determine orphans.
If your process will crash which is very much possible there will be issue with the message delivery within the queue however queue will still be available to process your request. Handling Application Crashes and Unreadable Messages with Windows Azure Service Bus queues are described here:
The Service Bus provides functionality to help you gracefully recover from errors in your application or difficulties processing a message. If a receiver application is unable to process the message for some reason, then it can call the Abandon method on the received message (instead of the Complete method). This will cause the Service Bus to unlock the message within the queue and make it available to be received again, either by the same consuming application or by another consuming application.
In the event that the application crashes after processing the message but before the Complete request is issued, then the message will be redelivered to the application when it restarts. This is often called At Least Once Processing, that is, each message will be processed at least once but in certain situations the same message may be redelivered. If the scenario cannot tolerate duplicate processing, then application developers should add additional logic to their application to handle duplicate message delivery. This is often achieved using the MessageId property of the message, which will remain constant across delivery attempts.
If there are no longer any processes reading nor writing to a queue, because of crashes or other abnormal terminations (instance restart, etc.), is that queue effectively orphaned?
No the queue is in place to allow communication to occur via Brokered Messages, if all your apps die for some reason then the queue still exists and will be there when they become alive again, it's the communication channel for loosely decoupled applications. Regards Billing 'Messages are charged based on the number of messages sent to, or delivered by, the Service Bus during the billing month' you won't be charged if a queue exists but nobody is using it.
I tested this by creating a few queues, and then terminating the
applications. Those queues were still on the machine a long time
later.
The whole point of the queue is to guarantee message delivery of loosely decoupled applications. Think of the queue as an entity or application in its own right with high availability (SLA) as its hosted in Azure, your producer/consumers can die/restart and the queue will be active in Azure. *Note I got a bit confused with your wording re: "still on the machine a long time later", the queue doesn't actually live on your machine, it sits up in Azure in a designated service bus namespace. You can view and managed the queues via the tools I pointed out in the previous answer.
How can we detect and delete these queues, as they will count towards
Azure limits, etc.
As stated above the default maximum number of queues is 10,000 (per service namespace, this can be increased via a support call), queue management can be done via the tools stated in the other answer. You should only be looking to delete queue's when you no longer have producer/consumers looking to write to them (i.e. never again). You can of course create and delete queues in your producer/consumer applications via the namespaceManager.QueueExists, more information here How to Use Service Bus Queues
If it helps make the question clearer, this is a unique situation in which the queues have special names, and a very limited set of publishers (1) and subscribers (1) for a limited time.
It sounds like you need to use Topics & Subscriptions How to Use Service Bus Topics/Subscriptions, this link also has a section on 'How to Delete Topics and Subscriptions' If you have a very limited lifetime then you could handle topic creation/deletion in your app's otherwise you could have have a separate Queue/Topic/Subscription setup/deletion script to handle this logic...