I'm looking at building an application which has many data sources, each of which put events into my system. Events have a well defined data structure and could be encoded using JSON or XML.
I would like to be able to guarantee that events are saved persistently, and that the events are used as a part of a publish/subscribe bus with multiple subscribers possible per event.
For the database, availability is very important even as it scales to multiple nodes, and partition tolerance is important so that I can scale the number of places which can store my events. Eventual consistency is good enough for me.
I was thinking of using a JMS enterprise messaging bus (e.g. Mule) or an AMQP enterprise messaging bus (such as RabbitMQ or ZeroMQ).
But for my application, it seems that if I could set up a publish subscribe system with CouchDB or something similar, it would solve my problem without having to integrate a enterprise messaging bus and a persistent storage system.
Which would work better, CouchDB + scaling + loadbalancing + some kind of PubSub mechanism, or an explicit PubSub messaging system with attached eventually-consistent , Available, partition-tolerant storage? Which one is easier to set up, administer, and operate? Which solution will have high throughput for a given cost? Why?
Also, are there any more questions I should ask before selecting my technologies? (BTW, Java is the server-side and client-side language).
I am using a CouchDB message queue in production. (It is not pub/sub, so I do not consider this answer complete.)
Currently (June 2011), CouchDB has huge potential as a messaging substrate:
Good data persistence
Well-poised for clustering (on a LAN, using BigCouch or Lounge)
Well-poised for distribution (between data centers, world-wide)
Good platform. Despite the shortcomings listed below, I love CQS because I can re-use my DB and it works from Erlang, NodeJS, and every web browser.
The _changes query
Continuous feeds, instant delivery without polling
Network going down is no problem, just retry later from the previous position
Still, even a low-volume message system in CouchDB requires careful planning and maintenance. CouchDB is potentially a great messaging server. (It is inspired by Lotus notes, which handles high email volume.)
However, these are the challenges with CouchDB:
Append-only database files grow fast
Be mindful about disk capacity
Be mindful about disk i/o. Compaction will read and re-write all live documents
Deleted documents are not really deleted. They are marked deleted=true and kept forever, even after compaction! This is in fact uniquely good about CouchDB, because the deleted action will propagate through the cluster, even if the network goes down for a time.
Propagating (replicating) deletes is great, but what about the buildup of deleted docs? Eventually it will outstrip everything else. The solution is to purge them, which actually removes them from disk. Unfortunately, if you do 2 or more purges before querying a map/reduce view, the view will completely rebuild itself. That may take too much time, depending on your needs.
As usual, we hear NoSQL databases shouting "free lunch!", "free lunch!" while CouchDB says "you are going to have to work for this."
Unfortunately, unless you have compelling pressure to re-use CouchDB, I would use a dedicated messaging platform. I had a good experience with ejabberd as a messaging platform and to communicate to/from Google App Engine.)
I think that the best solution would be CouchDB + Jabber/XMPP server (ejabberd) + book: http://professionalxmpp.com
JSON is the natural storing mechanism for CouchDB
Jabber/XMPP server includes pubsub support
The book is a must read
While you can use a database as an alternative to a message queueing system, no database is a message queuing system, not even CouchDB. A message queueing system like AMQP provides more than just persistence of messages, in fact with RabbitMQ, persistence is just an invisible service under the hood that takes care of all of the challenges that you have to deal with by yourself on CouchDB.
Take a good look at the RabbitMQ website where there is lots of information about AMQP and how to make use of it. They have done a great job of collecting together articles and blogs about message queueing.
Related
I have been struggling to find any key pros and cons on using one over the other. When it comes to sharing data between two microservices. Especially when it comes to scale.
What my assumption and question is - if we use a CDC to queue & CDC (Queue) subscriber combination, we can more or less can get rid of the need to publish to the message queue from our application layer (which might be prone to more human errors).
I went into this thought process when evaluating Mongodb "changestreams" and have been curious ever since.
When using CDC in this way, you're basically turning your microservice's database into a message broker. That has the advantage of not requiring a separate message broker. It has the disadvantages of deeply coupling the consuming microservices to the producing microservice, especially since every new consuming microservice will effectively impose some extra load on the source microservice's database.
CDC can be a reliable way to feed a pubsub topic on a message broker, however, though it's probably best to recognize that the CDC still means a coupling between the source microservice's internal data model and the data model for interservice communication, which tends to mean changes to one require changes to all. Since one of the primary (and arguably the only always-valid-in-general) reasons to adopt microservices is to allow changes with minimal coordination, it might be advised to have the CDC feed a single service which is responsible for translating the CDC records into the wire model (e.g. domain events with an agreed upon schema).
I have a couple of questions that exist around micro service architecture, for example take the following services:
orders,
account,
communication &
management
Question 1: From what I read I understand that each service is suppose to have ownership of the data pertaining to that service, so orders would have an orders database. How important is that data ownership? Would micro-services make sense if they all called from one traditional database such that all data pertaining to the services would exist in one database? If so, are there an implications of structuring the services this way.
Question 2: Services should be able to communicate with one and other. How would that statement be any different than simply curling an existing API? & basing the logic on that response? Is calling a service more efficient than simply curling the API?
Question 3: Is it worth it? Now I understand this is a massive generality , and it's fundamentally predicated on the needs of the business. But when that discussion has been had, was the re-build worth it? & what challenges can you expect to face
I will try to answer all the questions.
Respect to all services using the same database. If you do so you have two main problems. First the database would become a bottleneck because all requests will go to the same point. And second you will have coupled all your services, so if the database goes down or it needs to update, all your services will be affected. (The database will became a single point of failure)
The communication between services could be whatever your services need (syncrhonous, asynchronous, via message passing (message broker), etc..) it all depends on the use cases you have to support. The recommended way to do to avoid temporal decoupling is to use a message broker like kafka, doing this your services don't have to known each other and in case some of them go down the others will still working. And when they are up again, they can continue to process the messages that have pending. However, if your services need to respond in synchronous way, you can define synchronous communication between services and use a circuit breaker to behave properly in case the callee service is down.
Microservices architecture is far more complicated to make it work, to monitoring and to debug than a traditional monolith architecture so, it is only worth if you will have very large requirements of scalability and availability and/or if the system is very large and it will require several teams working in different parts of the system and it is recommendable to avoid dependencies among them. So each team can work at their own pace deploying their own services
I want to create a CQRS and Event Sourcing architecture that is very cheap and very flexible and very uncomplicated.
I want to make sure that events never fail to at least reach the publisher/event store, ever, ever, because that's where business is.
Now, i have several options in mind:
Azure
With azure, i seem to not know what to use.
Azure service bus
Azure Function
Azure webjob (i suppose this can be replaced with Azure functions)
?? (something else i forgot or dont know?)
How reliable are these azure server-less solutions??
Custom
For this i am thinking of using RabbitMQ, the problem is the cost of a virtual machine to run it.
All in all, i want:
Ability to replay the messages/events in case of failure.
Ability to easily add subscribers.
Ability to select the subscribers upon which to replay the messages.
The Event store should be able to store very large sizes of event messages (or how else shall queue an image or file??).
The event store MUST NEVER EVER get chocked, or sleep.
Speed of implementation/prototyping would be an added
advantage.
What does your experience suggest?
What about other alternatives? (eg: apache-kafka)?
Why not run Event Store? Created by Greg Young himself. Host where you need.
I am a java user, I have been using hornetq (aka artemis which I dont use) an alternative to rabbitmq for the longest; the only problem is it does not support replication but gets the job done when it comes to eventsourcing. For your custom scenario, rabbitmq is a good choice but try running it on a digital ocean instance for low costs. If you are looking for simplicity and flexibility you have only 2 choices , build your own or forgo simplicity and pick up apache kafka with all its complexities but will give you flexibility. Again you can also build an eventstore with mongodb. https://www.mongodb.com/blog/post/event-sourcing-with-mongodb
Your requirements are too vague to make the optimal choice. You need to consider a lot of things, one of them would be, for instance, the numbers of events per one aggregate, the number of aggregates (note that this has to be statistical). Those are important primarily because if you allow tens of thousands of events for each aggregate then you would need to have snapshotting which adds complexity which you might not need.
But for regular use cases you could just use a relational database like Postgres as your (linearizable) event store. It also has a listen/notify functionality to you would not really need any message bus either and your application could be written in a reactive way.
I've been doing some research but have reached the point where I think MongoDB/Mongoose (on Node.js) is not the right tool for the job. Here is the scenario...
Two documents: Account (money) information and Inventory information
Check if user's account has enough money
If so, check and deduct inventory
Deduct funds from Account Information
It seems like I really need a transaction system to prevent other events from altering the data in between steps.
Am I correct, or can this still be handled in MongoDB/Mongoose? If not, is there a NoSQL db that I should check out, preferably with Node.JS support?
Implementing transactional safety is usually tricky and requires more than just transactions on the database, e.g. if you need to communicate with external parties in a reliable fashion or if the transaction runs over minutes, hours or even days. But that's leading to far.
Anyhow, on the db side you can do transactions in MongoDB using two-phase commits, but it's not exactly trivial.
There's a ton of NoSQL databases with transaction support, e.g. redis, cassandra (using the Paxos protocol) and foundationdb.
However, this seems rather random to me because the idea of NoSQL databases is to use one that fits your particular problem. If you just need 'anything' with transactions, an SQL db might do the job, right?
You can always implement your own locking mechanism within your application to lock out other sections of the app while you are making your account and inventory checks and updates. That combined with findAndModify() http://docs.mongodb.org/manual/reference/command/findAndModify/#dbcmd.findAndModify may be enough for your transaction needs while also maintaining the flexibility of a NoSQL solution.
For the distributed lock I'd look at Warlock https://www.npmjs.org/package/node-redis-warlock I've not used it myself but it's node.js based and built on top of Redis, although implementing your own via Redis is not that hard to begin with.
I've written an application with a CouchDB backend. I have invested a lot of time into CouchDB and so I'm reluctant to move everything over to a different NoSQL database (like Redis).
The problem is that I now need to implement a rate limiting (based on IP address) feature.
There are plenty of examples on how good Redis is for this kind of task, however because I don't want to drop CouchDB for other tasks this means I would essentially be running (and supporting) two databases (1 for most data, 1 for rate limiting) and so...
Is running CouchDB in tandem with Redis unheard of?
Is CouchDB itself suitable for handling rate limiting itself?
Is running CouchDB in tandem with Redis unheard of?
Redis is commonly used in complement with other storage solutions (MySQL, PostgreSQL, MongoDB, CouchDB, etc ...). Like many other NoSQL solutions, Redis is not adapted to all kind of workloads or situations. The authors of Redis are pragmatic and open people, and they routinely suggest to use other solutions rather than Redis, when they are more adapted to the situation.
Redis is therefore a good team player, and it is generally easy to integrate in an existing infrastructure.
Here is an example of usage of Redis with CouchDB.
Is CouchDB itself suitable for handling rate limiting itself?
CouchDB has a number of useful features to implement the rate limiting strategy described in Chris O'Hara's article. For instance, it supports bulk operations on several documents (with optional atomicity). A "bucket span" can be stored in a single document. In-place incrementation of counters can be covered by using update handlers.
IMO, the main missing feature would be automatic item expiration (which CouchDB does not provide AFAIK). So you would have to design a clever mechanism to get rid of obsolete data on top of CouchDB.
The main problem is CouchDB is not really designed for this kind of workload: it is a log structured document oriented database. Each time a counter has to be incremented, it would involve JSON unpacking/packing operations, some Javascript code to be executed, and writing a new revision of the whole document in append only files. You can find a good article describing how CouchDB stores its data here.
I suspect a rate limiting strategy implemented on top of CouchDB would not scale very well (too many I/Os, too much CPU consumption, inefficient network protocol). For instance, CouchDB is a RESTful server; I would not feel comfortable to initiate client HTTP operations (REST queries to CouchDB) to rate limit each incoming HTTP query of my system.
Redis is much more adapted to this kind of workload (fast, in-memory, no I/O, efficient client protocol, no JSON parsing/formatting, incrementations are native atomic operations, etc ...)
You can do rate limiting with Memcached - it has a nice counter increment command as you mention, plus obsolete data is automatically purged from the cache in due course, so it has all the benefits of Redis for this application without the annoying duplication of capability (and complexity) that running Redis on top of CouchDB would bring.
http://simonwillison.net/2009/jan/7/ratelimitcache/
You could add memcached to your own setup easily enough or you could investigate CouchBase whose current server product integrates a CouchDB derived database with Memcached compatibility baked in:
http://www.couchbase.com/memcached
Personally I dislike the way Couchbase forked from CouchDB, but for your application it might be a perfect fit.