Reading the documentation of Janusgraph, I understand that high availability only exists in the storage system or backend. (Cassandra).
But, is there high availability on the GremlinServers?
For example in mode 16.3. Remote server Mode with Gremlin server.
I understand that the wheel with teeth is my application
architecture image
If I have a power outage in a Gremlin Server the two servers connected to the gremlinserver would not have service. There are no Failover or fault tolerane features in gremlinserver?
I use a property file with two parameters:
GremlinServerHost = 127.0.0.1
GremlinServerPort = 8182
Set spring with DI
<bean id="gremlinCluster" class="[FQDN].pool.GremlinCluster" scope="singleton" destroy-method="destroy">
<constructor-arg name="server"><value>${GremlinServerHost}</value></constructor-arg>
<constructor-arg name="port"><value>${GremlinServerPort}</value></constructor-arg>
</bean>
private Cluster init() {
..
..
Cluster cluster = Cluster.build(server).port(port)
..
;
..
And an implementation
Cluster cluster = gremlinCluster.getCluster();
Client client = null;
try {
client = cluster.connect();
String gremlin = "[Query Gremlin ... ]"
Gremlin Server instances don't have knowledge of each other, however depending on how you have configured your TinkerPop driver in your application you will get some level of failover in the sense that if the driver finds a dead server it will take note of that and then only send requests to the other available servers you configured. In the background it will continually try to reconnect to the dead server and if it comes back online will include it in the pool of server to which it will send requests.
So, in the scenario you posed as long as there is an available server, your application shouldn't know the difference. Of course, that means that the remaining active servers will be taking the load of other parts of the application.
Note that if you are using sessions with your driver, the session will be lost for the server that has gone down. Session information is not shared among Gremlin Server instances. So to get any form of high availability you would need to ensure you use sessionless communication.
Related
I have a weblogic cluster which has 4 nodes (managed servers). Today I found two of them are down, and I found in suprise that some JMS messages are not sent.
I wonder if it's the normal behaviour ? Shouldn't the cluster continue to deliver JMS using the two available nodes ?
In order to reach high availability for JMS you should configure two things
Migratable targets.
Persistance based either on shared storage or a database.
Why migratable targets? This is because messages produced by i.e. JMSServer01 can only be processed by JMSServer01. Thus, when you configure migratable targets the JMSServer01 will be migrated automatically into another Weblogic server.
Why persistance based on shared storage or a database? This is because once the JMS Server is migrated into another server, it will try to process the messages, which must be in a shared storage or database that can be seen by all your Weblogic servers.
You can find more information here https://docs.oracle.com/middleware/1213/core/ASHIA/jmsjta.htm#ASHIA4396
I want to setup a rabbitmq cluster behind a load balancer and connect to it using spring amqp. Questions :
Does spring client need to know the address of each node in the RMQ cluster or it is sufficient for it to know just the address of load balancer.
If Spring client is only aware of the load balancer, how will it maintain connections/connection factory for each node in the cluster.
Is there any code sample, which shows how to make the spring client work with load balancer.
It only needs the load balancer; however, Spring AMQP maintains a long-lived shared connection, so a load balancer generally doesn't bring much value unless you have multiple applications.
With a single application (with one connection factory), you will only be connected to one broker.
Clarification
See the documentation.
Starting with version 1.3, the CachingConnectionFactory can be configured to cache connections as well as just channels. In this case, each call to createConnection() creates a new connection (or retrieves an idle one from the cache). Closing a connection returns it to the cache (if the cache size has not been reached). Channels created on such connections are cached too. The use of separate connections might be useful in some environments, such as consuming from an HA cluster, in conjunction with a load balancer, to connect to different cluster members. Set the cacheMode to CacheMode.CONNECTION.
By default all components (listener containers, RabbitTemplates) share a single connection to the broker.
Starting with version 2.0.2, RabbitTemplate has a property usePublisherConnection; if this is set to true, publishers will use a separate connection to the listener containers - this is generally recommended to avoid a blocked publisher connection preventing consumers from receiving messages.
As shown in the quote, the use of a single (or 2) connections is controlled by connection factory's cache mode.
Setting the cache mode to CONNECTION, means that each component (listener container consumer, RabbitTemplate) gets its own connection. In practice there will only be one or two publisher connections because publish operations are, generally, short lived and the connection is cached for reuse. You might get one or two more publisher connections if concurrent publish operations are performed.
We are trying to prevent our application startups from just spinning if we cannot reach the remote cluster. From what I've read Force Server Mode states
In this case, discovery will happen as if all the nodes in topology
were server nodes.
What i want to know is:
Does this client then permanently act as a server which would run computes and store caching data?
If connection to the cluster does not happen at first, a later connection to an establish cluster cause issue with consistency? What would be the expect behavior with a Topology version mismatch? Id their potential for a split brain scenario?
No, it's still a client node, but behaves as a server on discovery protocol level. For example, it can start without any server nodes running.
Client node can never cause data inconsistency as it never stores the data. This does not depend forceServerMode flag.
Currently we have 2 load balanced web servers. We are just starting to expose some functionality over NSB. If I create two "app" servers would I create a cluster between all 4 servers? Or should I create 2 clusters?
i.e.
Cluster1: Web Server A, App Server A
Cluster2: Web Server B, App Server B
Seems like if it is one cluster, how do I keep a published message from being handled by the same logical subscriber more than once if that subscriber is deployed to both app server A and B?
Is the only reason I would put RabbitMQ on the web servers for message durability (assuming I didn't have any of the app services running on the web server as well)? In that case my assumption is that I am then using the cluster mirroring to get the message to the app server. Is this correct?
Endpoints vs Servers
NServiceBus uses the concept of endpoints. An endpoint is related to a queue on which it receives messages. If this endpoint is scaled out for either high availability or performance then you still have one queue (with RabbitMQ). So if you would have an instance running on server A and B they both (with RabbitMQ) get their messages from the same queue.
I wouldn't think in app servers but think in endpoints and their non functional requirements in regards to deployment, availability and performance.
Availability vs Performance vs Deployment
It is not required to host all endpoints on server A and B. You can also run service X and Y on server A and services U and V on server B. You then scale out for performance but not for availability but availability is already less of an issue because of the async nature of messaging. This can make deployment easier.
Pubsub vs Request Response
If the same logical endpoint has multiple instances deployed then it should not matter which instance processes an event. If it is then it probably isn't pub sub but async request / response. This is handled by NServiceBus by creating a queue for each instance (with RabbitMQ) on where the response can be received if that response requires affinity to requesting instance.
Topology
You have:
Load balanced web farm cluster
Load balanced RabbitMQ cluster
NServiceBus Endpoints
High available multiple instances on different machines
Spreading endpoints on various machines ( could even be a machine per endpoint)
A combination of both
Infrastructure
You could choose to run the RabbitMQ cluster on the same infrastructure as your web farm or do it separate. It depends on your requirements and available resources. If the web farm and rabbit cluster are separate then you can more easily scale out independently.
I have a Glassfish v2u2 cluster with two instances and I want to to fail-over between them. Every document that I read on this subject says that I should use a load balancer in front of Glassfish, like Apache httpd. In this scenario failover works, but I again have a single point of failure.
Is Glassfish able to do that fail-over without a load balancer in front?
The we solved this is that we have two IP addresses which both respond to the URL. The DNS provider (DNS Made Easy) will round robin between the two. Setting the timeout low will ensure that if one server fails the other will answer. When one server stops responding, DNS Made Easy will only send the other host as the server to respond to this URL. You will have to trust the DNS provider, but you can buy service with extremely high availability of the DNS lookup
As for high availability, you can have cluster setup which allows for session replication so that the user won't loose more than potentially one request which fails.
Hmm.. JBoss can do failover without a load balancer according to the docs (http://docs.jboss.org/jbossas/jboss4guide/r4/html/cluster.chapt.html) Chapter 16.1.2.1. Client-side interceptor.
As far as I know glassfish the cluster provides in-memory session replication between nodes. If I use Suns Glassfish Enterprise Application Server I can use HADB which promisses 99.999% of availability.
No, you can't do it at the application level.
Your options are:
Round-robin DNS - expose both your servers to the internet and let the client do the load-balancing - this is quite attractive as it will definitely enable fail-over.
Use a different layer 3 load balancing system - such as "Windows network load balancing" , "Linux Network Load balancing" or the one I wrote called "Fluffy Linux cluster"
Use a separate load-balancer that has a failover hot spare
In any of these cases you still need to ensure that your database and session data etc, are available and in sync between the members of your cluster, which in practice is much harder.