I have a couple of questions regarding EJB transactions. I have a situation where a process has become longer running that originally intended and is sometimes failing due to server timeout's being exceeded. While I have increased the timeouts initially (both total transaction and max transaction), for a long running process, I know that it make more sense to segment this work as much as possible into smaller units of work that don't fail based on timeout. As a result, I'm looking for some thoughts or references regarding next course of action based on the background below and the questions that follow.
Environment:
EJB 3.1, JPA 2.0, WebSphere 8.5
Background:
I built a set of POJOs to do some batch oriented work for an enterprise application. They are non-EJB POJOs that were intended to implement several business processes (5 related, sequential processes, each depending on it's predecessor). The POJOs are in a plain Java project, not an EJB project.
However, these POJOs access an EJB facade for database access via JPA. The abstract core of the 5 business processes does the JNDI lookup for the EJB facade in order to return the domain objects for processing. Originally, the design was to run from the server completely, however, a need arose to initiate these processes externally. As a result, I created an EJB wrapper so that the processes could be called remotely (individually or as a single process based on a common strategy interface). Unfortunately, the size of the data, both row width and row count, has grown well beyond the original intent.
The processing time required to complete these batch processes has increased significantly (from around a couple of hours to around 1/2 a day and could increase beyond that). Only one of the 5 processes made sense to multi-thread (I did implement it multi-threaded). Since I have the wrapper EJB to initiate 1 or all, I have decided to create a new container transaction for each process as opposed to the single default transaction of "required" when I run all as a single process. Since the one process is multi-threaded, it would make sense to attempt to create a new transaction per thread, however, being a group of POJOs, I do not have transaction capability.
Question:
So my question is, what makes more sense and why? Re-engineer the POJOs to be EJBs themselves and have the wrapper EJB instantiate each process as a child process where each can have its own transaction and more importantly, the multi-threaded process can create a transaction per thread. Or does it make more sense to attempt to create a UserTransaction in the POJOs from a JNDI lookup in the container and try to manage it as if it were a bean managed transaction (if that's even a viable solution). I know this may be application dependent, but what is reasonable with regard to timeouts for a Java EE container? Obviously, I don't want run away processes, but want to make sure that I can complete these batch processes.
Unfortunatly, this application has already been deployed as a production system. Re-engineering, though it may be little more than assembling the strategy logic in EJBs, is a large change to the functionality.
I did look around for some other threads here and via general internet searches, but thought I would see if anyone had compelling arguments for one over the other or another solution entirely. Additional links that talk about a topic such as this are appreciated. I wrestled with whether to post this since some may construe this as subjective, however, I felt the narrowed topic was worth the post and potentially relevant to others attempting processes like this.
This is not direct answer to your question, but something you could consider.
WebSphere 8.5 especially for these kind of applications (batch) provides a batch container. The batch function accommodate applications that must perform batch work alongside transactional applications. Batch work might take hours or even days to finish and uses large amounts of memory or processing power while it runs. You can reuse your Java classes in batch applications, batch steps can be run in parallel in cluster and has transaction checkpoint management.
Take a look at following resources:
IBM Education Assistant - Batch applications
Getting started with the batch environment
Since I really didn't get a whole lot of response or thoughts for this question over the past couple of weeks, I figured I would answer this question to hopefully help others in making a decision if they run across this or a similar situation.
Ultimately, I re-engineered one of the POJOs into an EJB that acted as a wrapper to call the other POJOs. The wrapper EJB performed the same activity as when it was just a POJO, except for the fact that I added the transaction semantics (REQUIRES_NEW) on the primary method. The primary method calls the other POJOs based on a stategy pattern so each call (or POJO) gets its own transaction. Other methods in the EJB that call the primary method were defined with NOT_SUPPORTED so that I could separate the transactions for each call to the primary method and not join an existing transaction.
Full disclosure, the original addition of transaction semantics significantly increased the processing time (on the order of days), but the process did not fail due to exceeding transaction timeouts. It was the result of some unexpected problems with JPA Many-To-One relationships that were bringing back too much data. Data retreived as a result of a the Many-To-One relationship. As I mentioned originally, some of my data row width increased unexpectedly. That data increase was in the related table object, but the query did not need that data at the time. I corrected those issues by changing my queries (creating objects for SELECT NEW queries, changed relationships to FetchType.LAZY, etc).
Going forward, if I am able to dedicate enough time, I will transform the rest of those POJOs into EJBs. The POJO doing the most significant amount of work that is threaded has been implemented with a Callable implementation that is run via an ExecutorService. If I can transform that one, the plan will be to make each thread its own transaction. However, while I'm not sure yet, it appears that my container may already be creating transactions for each thread group (of 10 threads) due to status updates I'm seeing. I will have to do more investigation.
Related
I'm using Hibernate in an embedded Jetty server, and I want to be able to parallelize my data processing with some multithreading and still have it all be in the same transaction. As Sessions are not thread safe this means I need a way to get multiple sessions attached to the same transaction, which means I need to switch away from the "thread" session context I've been using.
By my understanding of the documentation, this means I need to switch to JTA session context, but I'm having trouble getting that to work. My research so far seems to indicate that it requires something external to Hibernate in the server to provide transaction management, and that Jetty does not have such a thing built in, so I would have to pull in some additional library to do it. The top candidates I keep running across for that generally seem to be large packages that do all sorts of other stuff too, which seems wasteful, confusing, and distracting when I'm just looking for the one specific feature.
So, what is the minimal least disruptive setup and configuration change that will allow getCurrentSession() to return Sessions attached to the same transaction in different threads?
While I'm at it, I know that fetching objects in one thread and altering them in another is not safe, but what about reading their properties in another thread, for example calling toString() or a side effect free getter?
I have a naïve version of a PokerApp running as an Azure Website.
The server stores in its memory the state of the tables, (whose turn it is, blinds value, cards…) etc.
The problem here is that I don't know how much I can rely on the WebServer's memory to be "permanent". A simple restart of the server would cause that memory to be lost and therefore all the games in progress before the restart would get lost / cause trouble.
I've read about using TableStorage to keep session data and share it between instances, but in my case it's not just string of text that I want to share but let's say for example, a Lobby objcet which contains all info associated with the games.
This is very roughly the structure of the object I have in memory
After some of your comments, you can see the object that needs to be stored is quite big and is being almost constantly. I don't know how well serializing and deserializing is going to work for me here...
Should I consider an azure VM which I'm hoping is going to have persistent memory instead of a Website?
Or is there a better approach to achieve something like this?
Thanks all for the answers and comments, you've made it clear that one can't rely on local memory when working on the cloud.
I'm going to do some refactoring and optimize the "state" object and then use a caching service.
Two question come to my mind though, and once you throw some light on these ones I promise I will shut up and accept #astaykov's great answer.
CONCURRENCY AT INSTANCE LEVEL - I have classic thread locks in my app to avoid concurrency problems, so I'm hoping there is something equivalent for those caching services you guys propose?
Also, I have a few timeouts per table (increase blinds, number of seconds the players have to act…). Let's say a user has just folded a hand, he's finished interacting with the state object so I update the cache. While that state object (to which the timers belong) is cached, my timers will stop ticking…
I know I'm not explaining myself very well here but I hope you guys see my point.
I'd suggest using the Azure Redis Cache.
Here is a nice sample how to build MVC App with Redis Cache in 15 minutes.
You can, of course use the Azure Managed Cache. Or end up with Azure Tables. And Azure Tables can hold much more then just a string. But I believe the caching solutions would have lower latency in communication.
In either way, your objects have to be serializable. And yes - the objects will get serialized/deserialized by every access. You can do it manually, or let the framework do it for you. From what I've read, NewtonSoft.JSON is quite good and optimized JSON serializerdeserializer.
UPDATE
When you ask for a VM running in the cloud - a VM will be restarted sooner or later! Application Pool will recycle, a planned maintenance will occur, an unplanned maintenance will occur, a hard disk will fail, a memory module will fail, unforeseen disaster will happen.
Only one thing is for sure - if you want your data to survive server crashes, change the way you think and design software, and take data out of (local) the memory. Or just live the fact that application may lose state sometime.
Second update - for the clocks
Well, you have to play with your imagination and experience. I would question that your clocks work anyway in the context of the ASP.NET app (unless all of them being static properties of a static type, which would be a little hell). My approach would be heavily extend my app to the client as well (JavaScript). There are a lot of great frameworks out there - SignalR, AngularJS, KnockoutJS, none of them to be underestimated! By extending your object model to the client, you can maintain players objects lifetime on the client (keeping the clock ticking) and sending updates from the client to the server for all those events. If you take a look at SignalR, you can keep real time communication between multiple clients (say players) and the server. And the server side of SignalR scales out nicely with Azure Service Bus and even Redis.
Here is my scenario:
I have two servers with a multi-threaded message queuing consumer on each (two consumers total).
I have many message types (CreateParent, CreateChild, etc.)
I am stuck with bad legacy code (creating a child will partially creates a parent. I know it is bad...But I cannot change that.)
Message ordering cannot be assume (message queuing principle!)
RabbitMQ is my message queuing broker.
My problem:
When two threads are running simultaneous (one executing a CreateParent, the other executing a CreateChild), they generate conflicts because the two threads try to create the Parent in the database (remember the legacy code!)
My initial solution:
Inside the consumer, I created an "entity locking" concept. So when the thread processes a CreateChild message for example, it locks the Child and the Parent (legacy code!!) so the CreateParent message processing can wait. I used basic .net Monitor and list of Ids to implement this concept. It works well.
My initial solution limitation:
My "entity locking" concept works well on a single consumer in a single process on a single server. But it will not works across multiple servers running multiple consumers.
I am thinking of using a shared database to "store" my entity locking concept, so each processes (and threads) could access the database to verify which entities are locked.
My question (finally!):
All this is becoming very complex and it increases the bugs risk and code maintenance problems. I really don`t like it!
Does anyone already faced this kind of problem? Are they acceptable workarounds for it?
Does anyone have an idea for a clean solution for my scenario?
Thanks!
Finally, simple solutions are always the better ones!
Instead of using all the complexity of my "entity locking" concept, I finally turn down to pre-validate all the required data and entities states before executing the request.
More precisely, instead of letting CreateChild process crashes by itself when it encounter already existing data created by the CreateParent, I fully validate that everything is okay in the databases BEFORE executing the CreateChild message.
The drawback of this solution is that the implementation of the CreateChild must be aware of what of the specific data the CreateParent will produces and verify it`s presence before starting the execution. But seriously, this is far better than locking all the stuff in cross-system!
I've been using JMS Message Driven Bean for a while and it is working great for the asynchronous tasks. I know that there is many ways to handle the asynchronous processes, but I am just curious what are the benefits over using JMS Message Driven Bean and ScheduledThreadPoolExecutor?
For example I have a web service which handles some tasks asynchronously. So I see two main differences. If I would be using ScheduledThreadPoolExecutor I don't need application server, I could use a servlet container for e.g. Tomcat, because I am not using any EJB stuff, for MDB I need an application server, for e.g. Glassfish. But in terms of handling the actual asynchronous process, what are the advantages over each ScheduledThreadPoolExecutor and MDB?
ScheduledThreadPoolExecutor is used to schedule tasks, the abstraction best corresponding to MDB is ExecutorService. But back to your question.
MDB is more heavyweight, API is much more complex and in principle it was actually designed for transferring data, not logic. On the other hand ExecutorService is a thin layer on top of actual thread pool. So if you need performance, low latency and small overhead, go for ordinary thread pool.
The only reason for MDB and JMS is when you need durability and transaction support. That of course introduces even bigger overhead as each message needs to be persisted. But you won't loose any tasks that are queued or even in the middle of processing are not lost due to crash.
I have scoured the Internet, posted to the Spring forums, and read nearly the whole of the online documentation, but I cannot figure out whether Spring Integration can process more than one message within a single multi-resource (JTA) transaction. This is critical for my purposes, in order to get the throughput necessary. Does anyone know if this is possible? (And a little guidance on how to make it work would be appreciated.)
Once a transaction is started, as long as you don't pass a thread boundary all work will remain in that transaction.
This means that, if your transaction manager supports multi-resource transactions and you avoid introducing concurrency within the transaction, you will be OK.
In other words: it depends, but it is possible.