we have an ETL scenario where we use the resequencer.
Messages arrive to the flow with a sequence number that the resequencer uses it to send messages in order, but sometimes messages are discarded previously (because of data validation) and do not arrive to the resequencer. This produces holes in the sequence and resequencer stops sending messages using the default release strategy. To avoid this, we developed a new SequenceTimeoutReleaseStrategy that is a mix between default strategy and TimeoutCountSequenceSizeReleaseStrategy from SI. When a message arrives, it checks the timeout and release it if necesary.
All this worked well unless for the last messages that arrive before the timeout and have holes. This messages aren't release by the strategy. We could use a reaper but the secuence may have more than one hole in the sequence so when the resequencer release them it will stop in the first sequence break and remove the group losing the rest of the messages. So, the question is: is there a way to use the resequencer where there can be holes in the sequence?
One solution we have and want to avoid is having a scheduled tasks that removes the messages directly from the message store, but this could be a problem with concurrency and so on, so we prefer other solutions.
Any help is appreciated here
Regards
Guzman
There are two components involved; the release strategy says "something" can be released; the actual decision as to what is released is performed by the MessageGroupProcessor. In this case, a ResequencingMessageGroupProcessor.
You would need to customize that class to "skip" the hole(s).
You can't wire in a customized MGP using the <reseequencer/> namespace, you would have to wire up using <bean/> s - a ResequencingMessageHandler and a ConsumerEndpointFactoryBean.
Or use a BeanFactoryPostProcessor to change the constructor argument to your custom class.
Related
I am trying to learn more about CQRS and Event Sourcing (Event Store).
My understanding is that a message queue/bus is not normally used in this scenario - a message bus can be used to facilitate communication between Microservices, however it is not typically used specifically for CQRS. However, the way I see it at the moment - a message bus would be very useful guaranteeing that the read model is eventually in sync hence eventual consistency e.g. when the server hosting the read model database is brought back online.
I understand that eventual consistency is often acceptable with CQRS. My question is; how does the read side know it is out of sync with the write side? For example, lets say there are 2,000,000 events created in Event Store on a typical day and 1,999,050 are also written to the read store. The remaining 950 events are not written because of a software bug somewhere or because the server hosting the read model is offline for a few secondsetc. How does eventual consistency work here? How does the application know to replay the 950 events that are missing at the end of the day or the x events that were missed because of the downtime ten minutes ago?
I have read questions on here over the last week or so, which talk about messages being replayed from event store e.g. this one: CQRS - Event replay for read side, however none talk about how this is done. Do I need to setup a scheduled task that runs once per day and replays all events that were created since the date the scheduled task last succeeded? Is there a more elegant approach?
I've used two approaches in my projects, depending on the requirements:
Synchronous, in-process Readmodels. After the events are persisted, in the same request lifetime, in the same process, the Readmodels are fed with those events. In case of a Readmodel's failure (bug or catchable error/exception) the error is logged and that Readmodel is just skipped and the next Readmodel is fed with the events and so on. Then follow the Sagas, that may generate commands that generate more events and the cycle is repeated.
I use this approach when the impact of a Readmodel's failure is acceptable by the business, when the readiness of a Readmodel's data is more important than the risk of failure. For example, they wanted the data immediately available in the UI.
The error log should be easily accessible on some admin panel so someone would look at it in case a client reports inconsistency between write/commands and read/query.
This also works if you have your Readmodels coupled to each other, i.e. one Readmodel needs data from another canonical Readmodel. Although this seems bad, it's not, it always depends. There are cases when you trade updater code/logic duplication with resilience.
Asynchronous, in-another-process readmodel updater. This is used when I use total separation of the Readmodel from the other Readmodels, when a Readmodel's failure would not bring the whole read-side down; or when a Readmodel needs another language, different from the monolith. Basically this is a microservice. When something bad happens inside a Readmodel it necessary that some authoritative higher level component is notified, i.e. an Admin is notified by email or SMS or whatever.
The Readmodel should also have a status panel, with all kinds of metrics about the events that it has processed, if there are gaps, if there are errors or warnings; it also should have a command panel where an Admin could rebuild it at any time, preferable without a system downtime.
In any approach, the Readmodels should be easily rebuildable.
How would you choose between a pull approach and a push approach? Would you use a message queue with a push (events)
I prefer the pull based approach because:
it does not use another stateful component like a message queue, another thing that must be managed, that consume resources and that can (so it will) fail
every Readmodel consumes the events at the rate it wants
every Readmodel can easily change at any moment what event types it consumes
every Readmodel can easily at any time be rebuild by requesting all the events from the beginning
there order of events is exactly the same as the source of truth because you pull from the source of truth
There are cases when I would choose a message queue:
you need the events to be available even if the Event store is not
you need competitive/paralel consumers
you don't want to track what messages you consume; as they are consumed they are removed automatically from the queue
This talk from Greg Young may help.
How does the application know to replay the 950 events that are missing at the end of the day or the x events that were missed because of the downtime ten minutes ago?
So there are two different approaches here.
One is perhaps simpler than you expect - each time you need to rebuild a read model, just start from event 0 in the stream.
Yeah, the scale on that will eventually suck, so you won't want that to be your first strategy. But notice that it does work.
For updates with not-so-embarassing scaling properties, the usual idea is that the read model tracks meta data about stream position used to construct the previous model. Thus, the query from the read model becomes "What has happened since event #1,999,050"?
In the case of event store, the call might look something like
EventStore.ReadStreamEventsForwardAsync(stream, 1999050, 100, false)
Application doesn't know it hasn't processed some events due to a bug.
First of all, I don't understand why you assume that the number of events written on the write side must equal number of events processed by read side. Some projections may subscribe to the same event and some events may have no subscriptions on the read side.
In case of a bug in projection / infrastructure that resulted in a certain projection being invalid you might need to rebuild this projection. In most cases this would be a manual intervention that would reset the checkpoint of projection to 0 (begining of time) so the projection will pick up all events from event store from scratch and reprocess all of them again.
The event store should have a global sequence number across all events starting, say, at 1.
Each projection has a position tracking where it is along the sequence number. The projections are like logical queues.
You can clear a projection's data and reset the position back to 0 and it should be rebuilt.
In your case the projection fails for some reason, like the server going offline, at position 1,999,050 but when the server starts up again it will continue from this point.
I need to delay each message I produce with a specific time.
As far as I know the rabbitmq-delayed-message-exchange plugin allows me to do exactly that, however I was warned that it doesn't scale properly which is a definite requirement. (Has there been any updates lately fixing scaling problems?)
So, the alternative was to use TTL and a DLQ. With this approach though, you set the time when creating the exchange instead of the actual message which means I wouldn't be able to set different times for different messages.
Did I miss something?
My use case: Basicly I will be receiving specific "appointments" from clients which I must store and send back to the client at a specific time supplied in the appointment object. I want to acheive this by specifying a delay on each message so that my consumers must not implement waiting logic.
Why don't you use a per-queue message TTL, and have different queues for each different TTL you want to set, originally publish the messages through direct exchange with key related to the specific TTL?
Then having configured the same dead letter exchange for all those queues, they'll end up in the "final" queue for your consumers with the desired delay.
Of course it wouldn't be great if the possible values for the delays were too numerous.
I have a web service that use Rebus as Service Bus.
Rebus is configured as explained in this post.
The web service is load balanced with a two servers cluster.
These services are for a production environment and each production machine sends commands to save the produced quantities and/or to update its state.
In the BL I've modelled an Aggregate Root for each machine and it executes the commands emitted by the real machine. To preserve the correct status, the Aggregate needs to receive the commands in the same sequence as they were emitted, and, since there is no concurrency for that machine, that is the same order they are saved on the bus.
E.G.: the machine XX sends a command of 'add new piece done' and then the command 'Set stop for maintenance'. Executing these commands in a sequence you should have Aggregate XX in state 'Stop', but, with multiple server/worker roles, you could have that both commands are executed at the same time on the same version of Aggregate. This means that, depending on who saves the aggregate first, I can have Aggregate XX with state 'Stop' or 'Producing pieces' ... that is not the same thing.
I've introduced a Service Bus to add scale out as the number of machine scales and resilience (if a server fails I have only slowdown in processing commands).
Actually I'm using the name of the aggregate like a "topic" or "destinationAddress" with the IAdvancedApi, so the name of the aggregate is saved into the recipient of the transport. Then I've created a custom Transport class that:
1. does not remove the messages in progress but sets them in state
InProgress.
2. to retrive the messages selects only those that are in a recipient that have no one InProgress.
I'm wandering: is this the best way to guarantee that the bus executes the commands for aggregate in the same sequence as they arrived?
The solution would be have some kind of locking of your aggregate root, which needs to happen at the data store level.
E.g. by using optimistic locking (probably implemented with some kind of revision number or something like that), you would be sure that you would never accidentally overwrite another node's edits.
This would allow for your aggregate to either
a) accept the changes in either order (which is generally preferable – makes your system more tolerant), or
b) reject an invalid change
If the aggregate rejects the change, this could be implemented by throwing an exception. And then, in the Rebus handler that catches this exception, you can e.g. await bus.Defer(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(5), theMessage) which will cause it to be delivered again in five seconds.
You should never rely on message order in a service bus / queuing / messaging environment.
When you do find yourself in this position you may need to re-think your design. Firstly, a service bus is most certainly not an event store and attempting to use it like one is going to lead to pain and suffering :) --- not that you are attempting this but I thought I'd throw it in there.
As for your design, in order to manage this kind of state you may want to look at a process manager. If you are not generating those commands then even this will not help.
However, given your scenario it seems as though the calls are sequential but perhaps it is just your example. In any event, as mookid8000 said, you either want to:
discard invalid changes (with the appropriate feedback),
allow any order of messages as long as they are valid,
ignore out-of-sequence messages till later.
Hope that helps...
"exactly the same sequence as they were saved on the bus"
Just... why?
Would you rely on your HTTP server logs to know which command actually reached an aggregate first? No because it is totally unreliable, just like it is with at-least-one delivery guarantees and it's also irrelevant.
It is your event store and/or normal persistence state that should be the source of truth when it comes to knowing the sequence of events. The order of commands shouldn't really matter.
Assuming optimistic concurrency, if the aggregate is not allowed to transition from A to C then it should guard this invariant and when a TransitionToStateC command will hit it in the A state it will simply get rejected.
If on the other hand, A->C->B transitions are valid and that is the order received by your aggregate well that is what happened from the domain perspective. It really shouldn't matter which command was published first on the bus, just like it doesn't matter which user executed the command first from the UI.
"In my scenario the calls for a specific aggregate are absolutely
sequential and I must guarantee that are executed in the same order"
Why are you executing them asynchronously and potentially concurrently by publishing on a bus then? What you are basically saying is that calls are sequential and cannot be processed concurrently. That means everything should be synchronous because there is no potential benefit from parallelism.
Why:
executeAsync(command1)
executeAsync(command2)
executeAsync(command3)
When you want:
execute(command1)
execute(command2)
execute(command3)
You should have a single command message and the handler of this message executes multiple commands against the aggregate. Then again, in this case I'd just create a single operation on the aggregate that performs all the transitions.
I'm working on what's basically a highly-available distributed message-passing system. The system receives messages from someplace over HTTP or TCP, perform various transformations on it, and then sends it to one or more destinations (also using TCP/HTTP).
The system has a requirement that all messages sent to a given destination are in-order, because some messages build on the content of previous ones. This limits us to processing the messages sequentially, which takes about 750ms per message. So if someone sends us, for example, one message every 250ms, we're forced to queue the messages behind each other. This eventually introduces intolerable delay in message processing under high load, as each message may have to wait for hundreds of other messages to be processed before it gets its turn.
In order to solve this problem, I want to be able to parallelize our message processing without breaking the requirement that we send them in-order.
We can easily scale our processing horizontally. The missing piece is a way to ensure that, even if messages are processed out-of-order, they are "resequenced" and sent to the destinations in the order in which they were received. I'm trying to find the best way to achieve that.
Apache Camel has a thing called a Resequencer that does this, and it includes a nice diagram (which I don't have enough rep to embed directly). This is exactly what I want: something that takes out-of-order messages and puts them in-order.
But, I don't want it to be written in Java, and I need the solution to be highly available (i.e. resistant to typical system failures like crashes or system restarts) which I don't think Apache Camel offers.
Our application is written in Node.js, with Redis and Postgresql for data persistence. We use the Kue library for our message queues. Although Kue offers priority queueing, the featureset is too limited for the use-case described above, so I think we need an alternative technology to work in tandem with Kue to resequence our messages.
I was trying to research this topic online, and I can't find as much information as I expected. It seems like the type of distributed architecture pattern that would have articles and implementations galore, but I don't see that many. Searching for things like "message resequencing", "out of order processing", "parallelizing message processing", etc. turn up solutions that mostly just relax the "in-order" requirements based on partitions or topics or whatnot. Alternatively, they talk about parallelization on a single machine. I need a solution that:
Can handle processing on multiple messages simultaneously in any order.
Will always send messages in the order in which they arrived in the system, no matter what order they were processed in.
Is usable from Node.js
Can operate in a HA environment (i.e. multiple instances of it running on the same message queue at once w/o inconsistencies.)
Our current plan, which makes sense to me but which I cannot find described anywhere online, is to use Redis to maintain sets of in-progress and ready-to-send messages, sorted by their arrival time. Roughly, it works like this:
When a message is received, that message is put on the in-progress set.
When message processing is finished, that message is put on the ready-to-send set.
Whenever there's the same message at the front of both the in-progress and ready-to-send sets, that message can be sent and it will be in order.
I would write a small Node library that implements this behavior with a priority-queue-esque API using atomic Redis transactions. But this is just something I came up with myself, so I am wondering: Are there other technologies (ideally using the Node/Redis stack we're already on) that are out there for solving the problem of resequencing out-of-order messages? Or is there some other term for this problem that I can use as a keyword for research? Thanks for your help!
This is a common problem, so there are surely many solutions available. This is also quite a simple problem, and a good learning opportunity in the field of distributed systems. I would suggest writing your own.
You're going to have a few problems building this, namely
2: Exactly-once delivery
1: Guaranteed order of messages
2: Exactly-once delivery
You've found number 1, and you're solving this by resequencing them in redis, which is an ok solution. The other one, however, is not solved.
It looks like your architecture is not geared towards fault tolerance, so currently, if a server craches, you restart it and continue with your life. This works fine when processing all requests sequentially, because then you know exactly when you crashed, based on what the last successfully completed request was.
What you need is either a strategy for finding out what requests you actually completed, and which ones failed, or a well-written apology letter to send to your customers when something crashes.
If Redis is not sharded, it is strongly consistent. It will fail and possibly lose all data if that single node crashes, but you will not have any problems with out-of-order data, or data popping in and out of existance. A single Redis node can thus hold the guarantee that if a message is inserted into the to-process-set, and then into the done-set, no node will see the message in the done-set without it also being in the to-process-set.
How I would do it
Using redis seems like too much fuzz, assuming that the messages are not huge, and that losing them is ok if a process crashes, and that running them more than once, or even multiple copies of a single request at the same time is not a problem.
I would recommend setting up a supervisor server that takes incoming requests, dispatches each to a randomly chosen slave, stores the responses and puts them back in order again before sending them on. You said you expected the processing to take 750ms. If a slave hasn't responded within say 2 seconds, dispatch it again to another node randomly within 0-1 seconds. The first one responding is the one we're going to use. Beware of duplicate responses.
If the retry request also fails, double the maximum wait time. After 5 failures or so, each waiting up to twice (or any multiple greater than one) as long as the previous one, we probably have a permanent error, so we should probably ask for human intervention. This algorithm is called exponential backoff, and prevents a sudden spike in requests from taking down the entire cluster. Not using a random interval, and retrying after n seconds would probably cause a DOS-attack every n seconds until the cluster dies, if it ever gets a big enough load spike.
There are many ways this could fail, so make sure this system is not the only place data is stored. However, this will probably work 99+% of the time, it's probably at least as good as your current system, and you can implement it in a few hundred lines of code. Just make sure your supervisor is using asynchronous requests so that you can handle retries and timeouts. Javascript is by nature single-threaded, so this is slightly trickier than normal, but I'm confident you can do it.
Example: Business rules states that the customer should get a confirmation message (email or similar) when an order has been placed.
Lets say that a NewOrderRegisteredEvent is dispatched from the domain and is picked up by an event listener that sends of the confirmation message. When that is done some other event handler throws an exception or something else goes wrong and the unit of work is rolled back. We've now sent the user a confirmation message for something that was rolled back.
What is the "cqrs" way of solving problems like this where you want to do something after a unit of work has been committed? Another complicating factor is replaying of events. I don't want old confirmation messages to be re-sent whenever I replay recorded events in order to build a new view / projection.
My best theory so far: I've just started to look into the fascinating world of cqrs and was wondering whether this is something that would be implemented as a saga? If a saga is like a state machine where each transition only can take place a single time then I guess that would solve this problem? I just have a hard time visualizing how this will fit together with the command bus and domain events..
An Event should only occur after the transaction has been completed. If anything goes wrong and there's a rollback, then the event didn't occur from an external point of view. Therefore it shouldn't be published at all. Though an OrderRegistrationFailed event could be published if necessary.
You wouldn't want the mail to be sent unless the command has sucessfully been executed.
First a few reasons why the command handler -- as proposed in another answer -- would be the wrong place: Under some circumstances the command handler wouldn't be able to tell if the command will eventually succeed or not. Having the command handler invoke the mail sending would also put process knowledge inside the command handler, which would break the SRM and too tightly couple business rules with the application layer.
The mail should be sent after the fact, i.e. from an event handler.
To prevent this handler from firing during replay, you can just not register it. This works similar to how you test your application. You only register the handlers that you actually need.
Production system -> register all event handlers
Tests -> register only the tested event handlers
Replay -> register only the projection/denormalization handlers
Another - even more loosely coupled, though a bit more complex - possibility would be to have a Saga handle the NewOrderRegisteredEvent and issue a SendMail command to the appropriate bounded context (thanks, Yves Reynhout, for pointing this out in the question's comments).
There are two likely solutions
1) The publishing of the event and the handling of the event (i.e. the email) are part of a single transaction. In this case, your transaction framework takes care of it for you. If the email fails, then the event is rolled back. You'll likely retry the command. This is conceptually clean and easy to think about. No event is finished publishing until everyone that has something to say about it has had their say. However practically speaking, this can be painful, as it typically involves distributed transactions. These are hard to come by. Can your email client enroll in the same transaction as the database which is holding your events?
2) The publishing of the event is transactional, but the event handlers each deal with transactions in their own way. The event handler which sends emails could keep track of which events it had seen. If it crashed, it would request old events and process them. You could make a business decision as to how big a deal it would be if people had missing or duplicate emails. (For money-related transactions, the answer is probably you shouldn't allow it.)
Solution (2) is typically what you see promoted in DDD/CQRS circles as it's the more loosely coupled solution. Solution (1) is quite practical in a small system where the event store and the projections are in a single database and the projections don't change often. Solution (2) allows a diversity of event handlers to work in their own way. Solution (1) can cause lots of non-overlapping concerns to become entagled. In this case your order business rules don't complete until the many bizarre things that happen in emailing are taken care of. For one thing, it may slow you down quite a bit.
If the sending of the email were more interesting than "saw the event, sent the email", then you're right, you might have a saga or workflow on your hands. Email in large operations is often a complex system in its own right which you're unlikely to have to implement much of. You just need to be sure you put your email into a request queue of some sort (using approach (2)), and the email system is likely to do retries/batching/spam avoidance/working overnight/etc.