I have a grails app running with a single rabbit node. It is great. I want to fire up the same app a second time on the same machine on a different port. Currently, both apps answer jobs from both apps. I want their rabbits to be independent. What is the easiest way to ensure that each app only responds to the messages it sends? Multiple rabbit queues?
You can provide a virtualhost entry in the grails configuration:
rabbitmq.connectionfactory.virtualHost The name of the virtual host to connect to
Define two different vhosts in RabbitMQ, and each grails app will have their very own configured area to use. Messages sent through one vhost will only be available on that vhost, effectively separating the two grails apps without having to change queue setup or other internal parts of each app - just the configuration of the connection.
Remember that access control is performed on a per vhost basis, so you'll have to give your user access to each vhost in rabbitmq.
As #fiskfisk said, multiple vhosts is an option, and would work particularly well if you have a complex set of queues, exchanges, and bindings. There are some downsides to using a new vhost for the second application, including duplication of access control management, as well as some minor performance overhead.
If you have a fairly simple queue/exchange/binding setup, I would suggest pointing the second app at a queue with a different name, or giving your app the ability to be runtime-configured to either use a different queue, or to leverage the topic-based routing within RabbitMQ and have each app flag their messages with an app-specific prefix (or something similar).
One advantage of using topic routing to differentiate apps is that you can easily dip into the full stream of messages and do other things with that stream that you didn't foresee initially, including things like archival logging or audit logging, as well as other metrics collection or analysis.
tl;dr;
For long-term flexibility, have each instance of your application send messages to queues based on topic-routing.
For quick-and-dirty / get-it-working-yesterday, use a separate vhost for each instance of your application.
Related
I'm developing a server with many client requests. According to the type of requests, I want to use a separate TIdCmdTCPServer for each type of request.
In fact, it's an Accounting software that I want to separate each service with a separate TIdCmdTCPServer, for example one for Accounting, another one for Inventory, and so on.
Every TIdCmdTCPServer will have its own set of command handlers, and will be listening to its own port, but all will be activated on the same IP and running in the same application.
What is the disadvantage of this approach?
Can I use a single TSchedulerThreadPool shared by all of the TIdCmdTCPServers? Or should I use a separate TSchedulerThreadPool for each one?
There is nothing wrong with what you propose. The main disadvantage is just in using more system resources to maintain multiple servers in memory, and using multiple ports (which are a finite resource). But other than for code organizational purposes, there is no real advantage over just using a single port and defining your protocol to expose multiple subsets of commands that a client can choose from.
At the very least, a single TIdCmdTCPServer can listen on multiple ports via its Bindings collection, and your command handlers can look at which port each request comes from, if needed. Or, you can switch to a standard TIdTCPServer and use multiple manual TIdCommandHandlers collections, one for each binding.
And no, you cannot share schedulers across multiple servers. Each server requires its own scheduler. But a single server with multiple bindings needs only 1 scheduler.
This question is discussed many times but I'd like to hear some best practices and real-world examples of using each of the approaches below:
Designing containers which are able to check the health of dependent services. Simple script whait-for-it can be usefull for this kind of developing containers, but aren't suitable for more complex deployments. For instance, database could accept connections but migrations aren't applyied yet.
Make container able to post own status in Consul/etcd. All dependent services will poll certain endpoint which contains status of needed service. Looks nice but seems redundant, don't it?
Manage startup order of containers by external scheduler.
Which of the approaches above are preferable in context of absence/presence orchestrators like Swarm/Kubernetes/etc in delivery process ?
I can take a stab at the kubernetes perspective on those.
Designing containers which are able to check the health of dependent services. Simple script whait-for-it can be useful for this kind of developing containers, but aren't suitable for more complex deployments. For instance, database could accept connections but migrations aren't applied yet.
This sounds like you want to differentiate between liveness and readiness. Kubernetes allows for both types of probes for these, that you can use to check health and wait before serving any traffic.
Make container able to post own status in Consul/etcd. All dependent services will poll certain endpoint which contains status of needed service. Looks nice but seems redundant, don't it?
I agree. Having to maintain state separately is not preferred. However, in cases where it is absolutely necessary, if you really want to store the state of a resource, it is possible to use a third party resource.
Manage startup order of containers by external scheduler.
This seems tangential to the discussion mostly. However, Pet Sets, soon to be replaced by Stateful Sets in Kubernetes v1.5, give you deterministic order of initialization of pods. For containers on a single pod, there are init-containers which run serially and in order prior to running the main container.
I'd like to decouple a number of business objects that my website is using to support actions of the users.
My website is a SaaS/B2B site and I do not anticiapte to have a need for "mega scale". My primary issue is a need to decouple business objects from each other, and perform occasional longer-running operations asynchronously - outside of execution of threads that handle user traffic.
Having said that, I really do not want to have a separate set of servers that process my messages, and would prefer for web servers to just host MassTransit or other Bus software) internaly in memory. Assured message delivery (at this point) is also not yet my most important concenrn. I plan to "outsorce" a number of supporting business actions to the bus so that they do not pollute my main business services/objects.
Is this possible? Do I need Loopback for now as a transport or do I need full RabbitMq? Will RabbitMQ require me to install yet another set of servers to host it?
TIA
Loopback is just for testing. Installing RMQ is the right path. You don't NEED different servers for it, but would suggest it. If you off load work to a bus, you don't really want that contending with resources for the website. Given that, you can run RMQ locally without any issue. It message volume is low, so is resource usage in RMQ. When you reacher higher volumes, IO can be a problem with RabbitMQ (or any MQ).
I'm in the middle of developing a web application and have been asked the question whether it will work with a load balancer. My initial reaction is yes, since there is no state tracked between requests anywhere in the system. However, there is some application specific state loaded on app start (configuration settings from the database mainly.)
This data is all Read Only. Is it sufficient to rely on the normal cache dependency mechanisms to manage this and invalidate these objects across all the applications in the cluster or would I have to move to a shared cache system like App Fabric to ensure reliability/consistency?
With diagnostics enabled, I've got numerous logging calls using EventSource.Write and an out of process logger picking these up. I assume in this case, I'd need one logger installed on each of the servers in the cluster to pick up the events each one triggers. I'm not too fussed about that, but what is a good way to identify which server in the cluster serviced the request?
If you initialize the data on each server seperately and it is read-only, there's no problem. The separate applications will have a copy each.
Yes, you'd need a logger on each instance. In order to identify the server you could include the servers' IP into the log. That way you can track the server. (provided you have static IP's, but I assume you do).
I am putting together a REST API and as I'm unsure how it will scale or what the demand for it will be, I'd like to be able to rate limit uses of it as well as to be able to temporarily refuse requests when the box is over capacity or if there is some kind of slashdotted scenario.
I'd also like to be able to gracefully bring the service down temporarily (while giving clients results that indicate the main service is offline for a bit) when/if I need to scale the service by adding more capacity.
Are there any best practices for this kind of thing? Implementation is Rails with mysql.
This is all done with outer webserver, which listens to the world (i recommend nginx or lighttpd).
Regarding rate limits, nginx is able to limit, i.e. 50 req/minute per each IP, all over get 503 page, which you can customize.
Regarding expected temporary down, in rails world this is done via special maintainance.html page. There is some kind of automation that creates or symlinks that file when rails app servers go down. I'd recommend relying not on file presence, but on actual availability of app server.
But really you are able to start/stop services without losing any connections at all. I.e. you can run separate instance of app server on different UNIX socket/IP port and have balancer (nginx/lighty/haproxy) use that new instance too. Then you shut down old instance and all clients are served with only new one. No connection lost. Of course this scenario is not always possible, depends on type of change you introduced in new version.
haproxy is a balancer-only solution. It can extremely efficiently balance requests to app servers in your farm.
For quite big service you end-up with something like:
api.domain resolving to round-robin N balancers
each balancer proxies requests to M webservers for static and P app servers for dynamic content. Oh well your REST API don't have static files, does it?
For quite small service (under 2K rps) all balancing is done inside one-two webservers.
Good answers already - if you don't want to implement the limiter yourself, there are also solutions like 3scale (http://www.3scale.net) which does rate limiting, analytics etc. for APIs. It works using a plugin (see here for the ruby api plugin) which hooks into the 3scale architecture. You can also use it via varnish and have varnish act as a rate limiting proxy.
I'd recommend implementing the rate limits outside of your application since otherwise the high traffic will still have the effect of killing your app. One good solution is to implement it as part of your apache proxy, with something like mod_evasive