Currently I'm working on a distributed test execution and reporting system. I'm planning to use Redis PUB/SUB as a message queue and message distribution system.
I'm new to Redis, so I'm trying to read as many docs as I can and play around with it. One of the most important topics is high availability. As I said, I'm not an expert, but I'm aware of the possible options - using Sentinel, replication, clustering, etc.
What's not clear for me is how the Pub/Sub feature and the HA options are related each other. What's the best practice to build a reliable messaging system with Redis? By reliable I mean if my Redis message broker is down there should be some kind of a backup node (a slave?) that should be able to take over this role.
Is there a purely server-side solution? Or do I need to create a smart wrapper around the Redis client to handle this? Will a Sentinel-driven setup help me?
Doing pub sub in Redis with failover means thinking about additional factors in the client side. A key piece to understand is that subscriptions are per-connection. If you are subscribed to a channel on a node and it fails, you will need to handle reconnect and resubscribe. Because subscriptions are done at the connection level it is not something which can be replicated.
Regarding the details as to how it works and what you can expect to see, along with ways around it see a post I made earlier this year at https://objectrocket.com/blog/how-to/reliable-pubsub-and-blocking-commands-during-redis-failovers
You can lower the risk surface by subscribing to slaves and publishing to the master, but you would then need to have non-promotable slaves to subscribe to and still need to handle losing a slave - there is just as much chance to lose a given slave as there is a master.
IMO, PUB/SUB is not a good choice, may be disque (comes from antirez, author of the Redis) fits better:
Disque, an in-memory, distributed job queue
Related
We have been using ActiveMQ version 5.16.0 broker with single instances in production. Now we are planning to use cluster of AMQ brokers for HA and load distribution with consistency in message data. Currently we are using only one queue
HA can be achieved using failover but do we need to use the same datastore or it can be separated? If I use different instances for AMQ brokers then how to setup a common datastore.
Please guide me how to setup datastore for HA and load distribution
Multiple ActiveMQ servers clustered together can provide HA in a couple ways:
Scale message flow by using compute resources across multiple broker nodes
Maintain message flow during single node planned or unplanned outage of a broker node
Share data store in the event of ActiveMQ process failure.
Network of brokers solve #1 and #2. A standard 3-node cluster will give you excellent performance and ability to scale the number of producers and consumers, along with splitting the full flow across 3-nodes to provide increased capacity.
Solving for #3 is complicated-- in all messaging products. Brokers are always working to be completely empty-- so clustering the data store of a single-broker becomes an anti-pattern of sorts. Many times, relying on RAID disk with a single broker node will provide higher reliability than adding NFSv4, GFSv2, or JDBC and using shared-store.
That being said, if you must use a shared store-- follow best practices and use GFSv2 or NFSv4. JDBC is much slower and requires significant DB maintenance to keep running efficiently.
Note: [#Kevin Boone]'s note about CIFS/SMB is incorrect and CIFS/SMB should not be used. Otherwise, his responses are solid.
You can configure ActiveMQ so that instances share a message store, or so they have separate message stores. If they share a message store, then (essentially) the brokers will automatically form a master-slave configuration, such that only one broker (at a time) will accept connections from clients, and only one broker will update the store. Clients need to identify both brokers in their connection URIs, and will connect to whichever broker happens to be master.
With a shared message store like this, locks in the message store coordinate the master-slave assignment, which makes the choice of message store critical. Stores can be shared filesystems, or shared databases. Only a few shared filesystem implementations work properly -- anything based on NFS 4.x should work. CIFS/SMB stores can work, but there's so much variation between providers that it's hard to be sure. NFS v3 doesn't work, however well-implemented, because the locking semantics are inappropriate. In any case, the store needs to be robust, or replicated, or both, because the whole broker cluster depends on it. No store, no brokers.
In my experience, it's easier to get good throughput from a shared file store than a shared database although, of course, there are many factors to consider. Poor network connectivity will make it hard to get good throughput with any kind of shared store (or any kind of cluster, for that matter).
When using individual message stores, it's typical to put the brokers into some kind of mesh, with 'network connectors' to pass messages from one broker to another. Both brokers will accept connections from clients (there is no master), and the network connections will deal with the situation where messages are sent to one broker, but need to be consumed from another.
Clients' don't necessarily need to specify all brokers in their connection URIs, but generally will, in case one of the brokers is down.
A mesh is generally easier to set up, and (broadly speaking) can handle more client load, than a master-slave with shared filestore. However, (a) losing a broker amounts to losing any messages that were associated with it (until the broker can be restored) and (b) the mesh interferes with messaging patterns like message grouping and exclusive consumers.
There's really no hard-and-fast rule to determine which configuration to use. Many installers who already have some sort of shared store infrastructure (a decent relational database, or a clustered NFS, for example) will tend to want to use it. The rise in cloud deployments has had the effect that mesh operation with no shared store has become (I think) a lot more popular, because it's so symmetric.
There's more -- a lot more -- that could be said here. As a broad question, I suspect the OP is a bit out-of-scope for SO. You'll probably get more traction if you break your question up into smaller, more focused, parts.
Redis team introduce new Streams data type for Redis 5.0. Since Streams looks like Kafka topics from first view it seems difficult to find real world examples for using it.
In streams intro we have comparison with Kafka streams:
Runtime consumer groups handling. For example, if one of three consumers fails permanently, Redis will continue to serve first and second because now we would have just two logical partitions (consumers).
Redis streams much faster. They stored and operated from memory so this one is as is case.
We have some project with Kafka, RabbitMq and NATS. Now we are deep look into Redis stream to trying using it as "pre kafka cache" and in some case as Kafka/NATS alternative. The most critical point right now is replication:
Store all data in memory with AOF replication.
By default the asynchronous replication will not guarantee that XADD commands or consumer groups state changes are replicated: after a failover something can be missing depending on the ability of followers to receive the data from the master. This one looks like point to kill any interest to try streams in high load.
Redis failover process as operated by Sentinel or Redis Cluster performs only a best effort check to failover to the follower which is the most updated, and under certain specific failures may promote a follower that lacks some data.
And the cap strategy. The real "capped resource" with Redis Streams is memory, so it's not really so important how many items you want to store or which capped strategy you are using. So each time you consumer fails you would get peak memory consumption or message lost with cap.
We use Kafka as RTB bidder frontend which handle ~1,100,000 messages per second with ~120 bytes payload. With Redis we have ~170 mb/sec memory consumption on write and with 512 gb RAM server we have write "reserve" for ~50 minutes of data. So if processing system would be offline for this time we would crash.
Could you please tell more about Redis Streams usage in real world and may be some cases you try to use it themself? Or may be Redis Streams could be used with not big amount of data?
long time no see. This feels like a discussion that belongs in the redis-db mailing list, but the use case sounds fascinating.
Note that Redis Streams are not intended to be a Kafka replacement - they provide different properties and capabilities despite the similarities. You are of course correct with regards to the asynchronous nature of replication. As for scaling the amount of RAM available, you should consider using a cluster and partition your streams across period-based key names.
I would like to create a cluster for high availability and put a load balancer front of this cluster. In our configuration, we would like to create exchanges and queues manually, so one exchanges and queues are created, no client should make a call to redeclare them. I am using direct exchange with a routing key so its possible to route the messages into different queues on different nodes. However, I have some issues with clustering and queues.
As far as I read in the RabbitMQ documentation a queue is specific to the node it was created on. Moreover, we can only one queue with the same name in a cluster which should be alive in the time of publish/consume operations. If the node dies then the queue on that node will be gone and messages may not be recovered (depends on the configuration of course). So, even if I route the same message to different queues in different nodes, still I have to figure out how to use them in order to continue consuming messages.
I wonder if it is possible to handle this failover scenario without using mirrored queues. Say I would like switch to a new node in case of a failure and continue to consume from the same queue. Because publisher is just using routing key and these messages can go into more than one queue, same situation is not possible for the consumers.
In short, what can I to cope with the failures in an environment explained in the first paragraph. Queue mirroring is the best approach with a performance penalty in the cluster or a more practical solution exists?
Data replication (mirrored queues in RabbitMQ) is a standard approach to achieve high availability. I suggest to use those. If you don't replicate your data, you will lose it.
If you are worried about performance - RabbitMQ does not scale well.
The only way I know to improve performance is just to make your nodes bigger or create second cluster. Adding nodes to cluster does not really improve things. Also if you are planning to use TLS it will decrease throughput significantly as well. If you have high throughput requirement +HA I'd consider Apache Kafka.
If your use case allows not to care about HA, then just re-declare queues/exchanges whenever your consumers/publishers connect to the broker, which is absolutely fine. When you declare queue that's already exists nothing wrong will happen, queue won't be purged etc, same with exchange.
Also, check out RabbitMQ sharding plugin, maybe that will do for your usecase.
I have set up a rabbit cluster and I publish messages into a fanout exchange every time something changes in a database.
I have dedicated queues bound to this exchange for some of my microservices that consume these updates and I also originally set up a dedicated queue for an external client so that they can federate it with their own rabbit infrastructure and consume a copy of every message.
Now I'm wondering whether allowing exchange federation rather than creating a new dedicated queue for each new external consumer would be a better approach since more and more users will come.
What are the pros and cons?
Thanks
As long as you manage permissions properly, the final decision is up to you. You can give a try to all variants first and find what will fit your actual needs.
Having local queue may have it pros and cons: it allows end-user to survive some outage with their infrastructure or network issue at the cost of your disk/memory, however, you may limit queue length and/or size.
I'd suggest you to take a look at Shovel plugin and Dynamic shovels. With local queue it may server a good job.
Comparing to federation, shovel is much simpler, e.g. it doesn't sync content between upstream and downstream but simply moves message from one queue to another in a reliable manner. As long as you don't need what federation provides, shovel could be a good choice.
Also, you may find this q/a useful (however, it might be a bit outdated) - https://stackoverflow.com/a/19357272.
I was just wondering why would you use a something like RabbitMQ instead of a persistent store especially a document store like MongoDB? Arent they kinda the same? Whats the benefit of something like RabbitMQ over a database?
Would anyone who used something like RabbitMQ elaborate on the benefits?
RabbitMQ is a message broker software aka a queue and not a NoSql database!
While the trend goes towards storing more and more data in scaled-up queues as well as processing data at real time and thus obliterating the need for additional data storage, queues are not to be confused with databases:
most queues don't persist data indefinitely.
the data in queues is not available on demand by the use of queries, but accessed via an automatically triggered consumer mechanism.
the architectural intention behind queues differs tremendously from that of databases. Their purpose in a system's architecture is not data storage, but system integration and data distribution. For more good information on queue architecture, please check this article from the Kafka guys.