I am working on a laravel project which involves the customers of the application to import data into the application through various other APIs.
I am thinking of making jobs for each kind of data that needs to imported. But, that would mean that many customers will be raising jobs that need to be worked by queue workers which means that if a customer has raised a job to import one job which is importing a certain kind of data, if another customer also raised a job to import the same kind of data, he would have to wait for the first customer's job to complete and then the second customer's job would be started to work by the queue working. But then we cannot have 100 customers waiting for each other.
So what would be a viable solution for this kind of imports? Should I put the jobs on hashed queues and then call those queues? Or is there a better way to handle this. Has anyone ever worked with such an application where data was being imported from various APIs by customers asynchronously. And how to handle it best.
Your pointing in right direction. You need a queue worker such as Laravel's - but you need to choose the async driver. You can use the build-in drivers or try to install your own queue server like RabbitMQ. Here is a nice package with RabbitMQ driver for Laravel 5:
https://github.com/vladimir-yuldashev/laravel-queue-rabbitmq
This will makes all your customers request will get into the async queue the separate threads for each one. These queues systems works very efficient and we can say that is a kind of async PHP. For be more async inside PHP code you can use Guzzle HTTP package which provides Async Request (and full service from within the PHP code/server side of the application).
Related
I have a serverless function that receives orders, about ~30 per day. This function is depending on a third-party API to perform some additional lookups and checks. However, this external endpoint isn't 100% reliable and I need to be able to store order requests if the other API isn't available for a couple of hours (or more..).
My initial thought was to split the function into two, the first part would receive orders, do some initial checks such as validating the order, then post the request into a message queue or pub/sub system. On the other side, there's a consumer that reads orders and tries to perform the API requests, if the API isn't available the orders get posted back into the queue.
However, someone suggested to me to simply use an Azure Durable Function for the requests, and store the current backlog in the function state, using the Aggregator Pattern (especially since the API will be working find 99.99..% of the time). This would make the architecture a lot simpler.
What are the advantages/disadvantages of using one over the other, am I missing any important considerations?
I would appreciate any insight or other suggestions you have. Let me know if additional information is needed.
You could solve this problem with Durable Task Framework or Azure Storage or Service Bus Queues, but at your transaction volume, I think that's overcomplicating the solution.
If you're dealing with ~30 orders per day, consider one of the simpler solutions:
Use Polly, a well-supported resilience and fault-tolerance framework.
Write request information to your database. Have an Azure Function Timer Trigger read occasionally and finish processing orders that aren't marked as complete.
Durable Task Framework is great when you get into serious volume. But there's a non-trivial learning curve for the framework.
Context
In an ASP.NET Core application I would like to execute an operation which takes say 5 seconds (like sending email). I do know async/await and its purpose in ASP.NET Core, however I do not want to wait the end of the operation, instead I would like to return back to the to the client immediately.
Issue
So it is kinda Fire and Forget either homebrew, either Hangfire's BackgroundJob.Enqueue<IEmailSender>(x => x.Send("hangfire#example.com"));
Suppose I have some more complex method with injected ILogger and other stuff and I would like to Fire and Forget that method. In the method there are error handling and logging.(note: not necessary with Hangfire, the issue is agnostic to how the background worker is implemented). My problem is that method will run completely out of context, probably nothing will work inside, no HttpContext (I mean HttpContextAccessor will give null etc) so no User, no Session etc.
Question
How to correctly solve say this particular email sending problem? No one wants wait with the response 5 seconds, and the same time no one wants to throw and email, and not even logging if the send operation returned with error...
How to correctly solve say this particular email sending problem?
This is a specific instance of the "run a background job from my web app" problem.
there is no universal solution
There is - or at least, a universal pattern; it's just that many developers try to avoid it because it's not easy.
I describe it pretty fully in my blog post series on the basic distributed architecture. I think one important thing to acknowledge is that since your background work (sending an email) is done outside of an HTTP request, it really should be done outside of your web app process. Once you accept that, the rest of the solution falls into place:
You need a durable storage queue for the work. Hangfire uses your database; I tend to prefer cloud queues like Azure Storage Queues.
This means you'll need to copy all the data over that you will need, since it needs to be serialized into that queue. The same restriction applies to Hangfire, it's just not obvious because Hangfire runs in the same web application process.
You need a background process to execute your work queue. I tend to prefer Azure Functions, but another common approach is to run an ASP.NET Core Worker Service as a Win32 service or Linux daemon. Hangfire has its own ad-hoc in-process thread. Running an ASP.NET Core hosted service in-process would also work, though that has some of the same drawbacks as Hangfire since it also runs in the web application process.
Finally, your work queue processor application has its own service injection, and you can code it to create a dependency scope per work queue item if desired.
IMO, this is a normal threshold that's reached as your web application "grows up". It's more complex than a simple web app: now you have a web app, a durable queue, and a background processor. So your deployment becomes more complex, you need to think about things like versioning your worker queue schema so you can upgrade without downtime (something Hangfire can't handle well), etc. And some devs really balk at this because it's more complex when "all" they want to do is send an email without waiting for it, but the fact is that this is the necessary step upwards when a baby web app becomes distributed.
I'm thinking about making a worker script to handle async tasks on my server, using a framework such as ReactPHP, Amp or Swoole that would be running permanently as a service (I haven't made my choice between these frameworks yet, so solutions involving any of these are helpful).
My web endpoints would still be managed by Apache + PHP-FPM as normal, and I want them to be able to send messages to the permanently running script to make it aware that an async job is ready to be processed ASAP.
Pseudo-code from a web endpoint:
$pdo->exec('INSERT INTO Jobs VALUES (...)');
$jobId = $pdo->lastInsertId();
notify_new_job_to_worker($jobId); // how?
How do you typically handle communication from PHP-FPM to the permanently running script in any of these frameworks? Do you set up a TCP / Unix Socket server and implement your own messaging protocol, or are there ready-made solutions to tackle this problem?
Note: In case you're wondering, I'm not planning to use a third-party message queue software, as I want async jobs to be stored as part of the database transaction (either the whole transaction is successful, including committing the pending job, or the whole transaction is discarded). This is my guarantee that no jobs will be lost. If, worst case scenario, the message cannot be sent to the running service, missed jobs may still be retrieved from the database at a later time.
If your worker "runs permanently" as a service, it should provide some API to interact through. I use AmPHP in my project for async services, and my services implement HTTP/Websockets servers (using Amp libraries) as an API transport.
Hey ReactPHP core team member here. It totally depends on what your ReactPHP/Amp/Swoole process does. Looking at your example my suggestion would be to use a message broker/queue like RabbitMQ. That way the process can pic it up when it's ready for it and ack it when it's done. If anything happens with your process in the mean time and dies it will retry as long as it hasn't acked the message. You can also do a small HTTP API but that doesn't guarantee reprocessing of messages on fatal failures. Ultimately it all depends on your design, all 3 projects are a toolset to build your own architectures and systems, it's all up to you.
Say I have a express service which sends email:
app.post('/send', function(req, res) {
sendEmailAsync(req.body).catch(console.error)
res.send('ok')
})
this works.
I'd like to know what's the advantage of introducing a job queue here? like Kue.
Does Node.js need a job queue?
Not generically.
A job queue is to solve a specific problem, usually with more to do than a single node.js process can handle at once so you "queue" up things to do and may even dole them out to other processes to handle.
You may even have priorities for different types of jobs or want to control the rate at which jobs are executed (suppose you have a rate limit cap you have to remain below on some external server or just don't want to overwhelm some other server). One can also use nodejs clustering to increase the amount of tasks that your node server can handle. So, a queue is about controlling the execution of some CPU or resource intensive task when you have more of it to do than your server can easily execute at once. A queue gives you control over the flow of execution.
I don't see any reason for the code you show to use a job queue unless you were doing a lot of these all at once.
The specific https://github.com/OptimalBits/bull library or Kue library you mention lists these features on its NPM page:
Delayed jobs
Distribution of parallel work load
Job event and progress pubsub
Job TTL
Optional retries with backoff
Graceful workers shutdown
Full-text search capabilities
RESTful JSON API
Rich integrated UI
Infinite scrolling
UI progress indication
Job specific logging
So, I think it goes without saying that you'd add a queue if you needed some specific queuing features and you'd use the Kue library if it had the best set of features for your particular problem.
In case it matters, your code is sending res.send("ok") before it finishes with the async tasks and before you know if it succeeded or not. Sometimes there are reasons for doing that, but sometimes you want to communicate back whether the operation was successful or not (which you are not doing).
Basically, the point of a queue would simply be to give you more control over their execution.
This could be for things like throttling how many you send, giving priority to other actions first, evening out the flow (i.e., if 10000 get sent at the same time, you don't try to send all 10000 at the same time and kill your server).
What exactly you use your queue for, and whether it would be of any benefit, depends on your actual situation and use cases. At the end of the day, it's just about controlling the flow.
I have a site that makes the standard data-bound calls, but then also have a few CPU-intensive tasks which are ran a few times per day, mainly by the admin.
These tasks include grabbing data from the db, running a few time-consuming different algorithms, then reuploading the data. What would be the best method for making these calls and having them run without blocking the event loop?
I definitely want to keep the calculations on the server so web workers wouldn't work here. Would a child process be enough here? Or should I have a separate thread running in the background handling all /api/admin calls?
The basic answer to this scenario in Node.js land is to use the core cluster module - https://nodejs.org/docs/latest/api/cluster.html
It is an acceptable API to :
easily launch worker node.js instances on the same machine (each instance will have its own event loop)
keep a live communication channel for short messages between instances
this way, any work done in the child instance will not block your master event loop.