On this page from IBM, I read the following -
"The client application communicates with the CICS server program by using a data area called a COMMAREA, which is passed to the CICS region on the call."
My question is, where is this data area located?
CICS will maintain it for you between instances. For you to know would totally allow you to break that abstraction.
In some cases it will remain in CICS storage. If you are in a multi region setup, it will very likely be passed about using any of a variety of options, VSAM datasets, shared memory, VTAM or TCP/IP.
But you really don't want to know. The first time your transaction runs, it can set up whatever commarea it likes. On every RETURN, except the last one, pass that commarea back to CICS. CICS will then hand you back your commarea totally undisturbed the next time your transaction runs.
Also, commareas have some serious limitations. If you are doing new development, you should be thinking channels and containers, the remove the commarea limitations.
Related
In their famous article, Miguel Castro and Barbara Liskov justify the commit phase of the PBFT consensus protocol like this:
This ensures that replicas agree on a total order for requests in the
same view but it is not sufficient to ensure a total order for
requests across view changes. Replicas may collect prepared
certificates in different views with the same sequence number and
different requests. The commit phase solves this problem as follows.
Each replica i multicasts <COMMIT, v, n, i>_{α_i} saying it has the
prepared certificate and adds this message to its log. Then each
replica collects messages until it has a quorum certificate with 2 f +
1 COMMIT messages for the same sequence number n and view v from
different replicas (including itself). We call this certificate the
committed certificate and say that the request is committed by the
replica when it has both the prepared and committed certificates.
But why exactly do we need to guarantee total order across view changes?
If a leader/primary replica fails and triggers a view change, wouldn't it suffice to discard everything from the previous view? What situation does the commit phase prevent that this solution does not?
Apologies if this is too obvious. I'm new to distributed systems and I haven't found any source which directly answers this question.
There is a conceptual reason for this. The system appears to a client as a black box. The whole idea of this box is to provide reliable access to some service, thus, it should mask the failures of a particular replica. Otherwise, if you discard everything at each view change, clients will constantly lose their data. So basically, your solution simply contradicts the specification. The commit phase is needed exactly to prevent such kind of situations. If the request is "accepted" only when there are 2f + 1 COMMIT messages, then, even if all f replicas are faulty, the remaining nodes can recover all committed requests, this provides durable access to the system.
There is also a technical reason. In theory the system is asynchronous, this means that you can't even guarantee that the view change will occur only as a result of a failure. Some replicas may only suspect that the leader is faulty and change the view. With your solution it is possible that the system discards everything it is accepted even if non of replicas is faulty.
If you're new to distributed systems I suggest you to have a look at the classic protocols tolerating non-Byzantine failures (e.g., Paxos), they are simpler but solves the problems in the similar way.
Edit
When I say "clients constantly lose their data" it is a bit more than it sounds. I'm talking about the impact of a particular client request to the system. Let's take a key-value store. A clinet A associates some value to some key via our "black box". The "black box" now orders this request with respect to any other concurrent (or simply parallel) requests. It then replicates it across all replicas and finally notifies A. Without commit phase there is no ordering and at two different views our "black box" can chose two different order of execution of client requests. That being said, the following is possible:
at a time t, A associates value to key and the "box" approves this,
at the time t+1, B associates value_2 to key and the "box" approves this,
at the time t+2, C reads value_2 from key,
view change (invisible to clients),
at the time t+3, D reads value from key.
Note that (5) is possible not because the "box" is not aware of value_2 (as you mentioned the value itself can be resubmitted) but because it is not aware that previously it first wrote value and then overwrote it with value_2. At the new view, the system needs somehow order those two requests but no luck, the decision is not coherent with the past.
The eventual synchrony is a way to guarantee liveness of the protocols, however, it cannot prevent the situations described above. Eventual synchrony states that eventually your system will behave much like the synchronous one, but you don't know when, before that time any kind of weird things can happen. If during the asynchronous period a safety property is violated, then obviously the whole system is not safe.
The output of PBFT should not be one log per view, but rather an ever-growing global log to which every view tries to contribute new 'blocks'.
The equivalent notion in a blockchain is that each block proposer, or block miner, must append to the current blockchain, instead of starting its new blockchain from scratch. I.e. new blocks must respect previous transactions, the same way new views must respect previous views.
If the total ordering is not consistent across views, then we lose the property above.
In fact if we force a view change after every sequence number in PBFT, it looks a lot like blockchain, but with a much more complicated recovery/safety mechanism (in part since PBFT blocks don't commit to the previous block, so we need to agree on each of them individually)
I want to use one Camera for two processes / threads, e.g.
a) live streaming and
b) image processing at the same time.
Use Case:
Application, which can handle multiple request, based on a user request.
a) User can request – Detect cam-1 and do a Live streaming
b) Later, user can request – Detect Motion / Image processing using the same cam-1, while process (a) is doing the live streaming.
Challenge I see to access same camera by 2 different process at the same time, is there way to reroute the data / pointers of Cam data to different process ?
Note: OS -Windows
Any help will be appreciated !!
Regards, AK
Well, doable. But ..
Given the said above, there are few things to respect once designing the target software approach. One of these is a fact, the camera is a device, which restricts it to have a single "commander-in-charge", rather than permiting to have a shizophrenic "duty" under several concurrent bosses.
This sais, the solution is in smarter-design of the acquired data-stream, this could be delivered into several concurrent consuming-processes.
For more hints on such a design concept, read this Answer to a similarly motivated Question.
Avoid to let two threads access the camera at the same time.
If the driver allows it, you may work with multiple buffers, used in a round-robin fashion to store the live stream. Their content can be continuously sent to the display, but when desired you can leave one on the side and reserve it to allow for longer processing.
If this is not possible, you can copy every desired image to a processing buffer when needed.
If your system must be very responsive and process the images in real-time, there is probably no need for two threads !
In any case, if you are working with two threads, there is no need to "reroute the pointers", you simply let the threads access the buffers.
If they are processes rather than threads, then you can establish the buffers in a shared memory section.
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.
If I have ,say, 2 screens. First is the prompt screen which asks for, say, some record key and the next screen displays the information about the record.
Now when I want to transfer the control to the second screen (after doing the job of the 1st screen) I can do that by :
exec cics
return(trans-id)
commarea(ws-commarea)
end exec.
where trans-id is that of the 2nd screen.
Then what is need for using a calling function such as xctl when we already have the return() available in cics?
Using XCTL or LINK or dynamic CALLs confines your processing to one CICS transaction.
If you so desire, you can design your application to spread different business functions across multiple transactions, passing data with a commarea.
Historically this wasn't done for a number of reasons. Thirty years ago, some CICS Systems Programmers felt transaction IDs were a limited resource and encouraged application designers to keep processing to the minimum number of transactions possible.
Security in CICS is handled at the transaction level, so your user must have authority to execute all transactions that comprise the business function they must perform.
Resources such as temporary storage queues are often named in part using the transaction ID to differentiate and keep them separate.
Prior to CICS TS version 2 (I think) the data to be shared between those transactions was limited to the size of a commarea (32K). All supported versions of CICS now have channels and containers, allowing you to pass significantly larger amounts of data.
My experience is that it is simpler to code and easier to maintain pseudo-conversational transactions with screen interactions if the code is all in one transaction. You really want your transactions to be pseudo-conversational or non conversational. I believe this to be the overriding reason you see transactions designed to use XCTL, LINK, or dynamic CALLs.
XCTL also doesn't allow dynamic routing (you always stay in the same CICS region), and is one way only. Pseudo-conversational return as above will let the user update the screen, and then only when they press an Attention Identifier (such as Enter) will the next program run. XCTL will run immediately.
I'm designing a large-scale project, and I think I see a way I could drastically improve performance by taking advantage of multiple cores. However, I have zero experience with multiprocessing, and I'm a little concerned that my ideas might not be good ones.
Idea
The program is a video game that procedurally generates massive amounts of content. Since there's far too much to generate all at once, the program instead tries to generate what it needs as or slightly before it needs it, and expends a large amount of effort trying to predict what it will need in the near future and how near that future is. The entire program, therefore, is built around a task scheduler, which gets passed function objects with bits of metadata attached to help determine what order they should be processed in and calls them in that order.
Motivation
It seems to be like it ought to be easy to make these functions execute concurrently in their own processes. But looking at the documentation for the multiprocessing modules makes me reconsider- there doesn't seem to be any simple way to share large data structures between threads. I can't help but imagine this is intentional.
Questions
So I suppose the fundamental questions I need to know the answers to are thus:
Is there any practical way to allow multiple threads to access the same list/dict/etc... for both reading and writing at the same time? Can I just launch multiple instances of my star generator, give it access to the dict that holds all the stars, and have new objects appear to just pop into existence in the dict from the perspective of other threads (that is, I wouldn't have to explicitly grab the star from the process that made it; I'd just pull it out of the dict as if the main thread had put it there itself).
If not, is there any practical way to allow multiple threads to read the same data structure at the same time, but feed their resultant data back to a main thread to be rolled into that same data structure safely?
Would this design work even if I ensured that no two concurrent functions tried to access the same data structure at the same time, either for reading or for writing?
Can data structures be inherently shared between processes at all, or do I always explicitly have to send data from one process to another as I would with processes communicating over a TCP stream? I know there are objects that abstract away that sort of thing, but I'm asking if it can be done away with entirely; have the object each thread is looking at actually be the same block of memory.
How flexible are the objects that the modules provide to abstract away the communication between processes? Can I use them as a drop-in replacement for data structures used in existing code and not notice any differences? If I do such a thing, would it cause an unmanageable amount of overhead?
Sorry for my naivete, but I don't have a formal computer science education (at least, not yet) and I've never worked with concurrent systems before. Is the idea I'm trying to implement here even remotely practical, or would any solution that allows me to transparently execute arbitrary functions concurrently cause so much overhead that I'd be better off doing everything in one thread?
Example
For maximum clarity, here's an example of how I imagine the system would work:
The UI module has been instructed by the player to move the view over to a certain area of space. It informs the content management module of this, and asks it to make sure that all of the stars the player can currently click on are fully generated and ready to be clicked on.
The content management module checks and sees that a couple of the stars the UI is saying the player could potentially try to interact with have not, in fact, had the details that would show upon click generated yet. It produces a number of Task objects containing the methods of those stars that, when called, will generate the necessary data. It also adds some metadata to these task objects, assuming (possibly based on further information collected from the UI module) that it will be 0.1 seconds before the player tries to click anything, and that stars whose icons are closest to the cursor have the greatest chance of being clicked on and should therefore be requested for a time slightly sooner than the stars further from the cursor. It then adds these objects to the scheduler queue.
The scheduler quickly sorts its queue by how soon each task needs to be done, then pops the first task object off the queue, makes a new process from the function it contains, and then thinks no more about that process, instead just popping another task off the queue and stuffing it into a process too, then the next one, then the next one...
Meanwhile, the new process executes, stores the data it generates on the star object it is a method of, and terminates when it gets to the return statement.
The UI then registers that the player has indeed clicked on a star now, and looks up the data it needs to display on the star object whose representative sprite has been clicked. If the data is there, it displays it; if it isn't, the UI displays a message asking the player to wait and continues repeatedly trying to access the necessary attributes of the star object until it succeeds.
Even though your problem seems very complicated, there is a very easy solution. You can hide away all the complicated stuff of sharing you objects across processes using a proxy.
The basic idea is that you create some manager that manages all your objects that should be shared across processes. This manager then creates its own process where it waits that some other process instructs it to change the object. But enough said. It looks like this:
import multiprocessing as m
manager = m.Manager()
starsdict = manager.dict()
process = Process(target=yourfunction, args=(starsdict,))
process.run()
The object stored in starsdict is not the real dict. instead it sends all changes and requests, you do with it, to its manager. This is called a "proxy", it has almost exactly the same API as the object it mimics. These proxies are pickleable, so you can pass as arguments to functions in new processes (like shown above) or send them through queues.
You can read more about this in the documentation.
I don't know how proxies react if two processes are accessing them simultaneously. Since they're made for parallelism I guess they should be safe, even though I heard they're not. It would be best if you test this yourself or look for it in the documentation.