We have been working on a application using RabbitMQ which is installed in local development server. Now we want to move this application to integration and QA environments then the problem is do we need to setup RabbitMQ in different environments or is there any ways to have one central location for RabbitMQ with same exchange and queue names.
You can certainly have a central RabbitMQ instance/cluster that can be shared by different applications and different teams. If you want to go down this route, I'd recommend isolating data that belongs to each team from others' using Rabbit's access control mechanisms. Virtual hosts allow users to share Rabbit server/cluster resources without stepping on each other's queues.
If, for whatever reason, you decide to stick to a single virtual host in a shared environment, I'd advise against sharing the same exchange and queue names with other teams (or even other devs!) not least because of potential for conflict between the different parties' data. I say 'potential' because not knowing the architecture of your application and queues, there may not be a possibility for such a conflict so it's up to you to decide whether there would be a problem.
Finally, if the desire to share queues and exchanges with other teams is driven by concern over setup effort, I'd suggest automating queue configuration or building it into your application's startup routines to avoid headaches.
Hope this helps!
Related
I am in a situation where I can use Service Fabric (locally) but cannot leverage Azure Service Bus (or anything "cloud"). What would be the corollary for queuing/pub-sub? Service Fabric is allowed since it is able to run in a local container, and is "free". Other 3rd party messaging infrastructure, like RabbitMQ, are also off the table (at the moment).
I've built systems using a locally grown bus, built on MSMQ and WCF, but I don't see how to accomplish the same thing in SF. I suspect I can have SF services use a custom ICommunicationListener that exposes msmq, but that would only be available inside the cluster (the way I understand it). I can build an HTTPBridge (in SF) in front of those to make them available outside the cluster, but then I'd lose the lifetime decoupling (client being able to call a service, using queues, even if that service isn't online at the time) since the bridge itself wouldn't benefit from any of the aspects of queuing.
I have a few possibilities but all suffer from some malady that only exists because of SF, locally. Also, the same code needs to easily deploy to full Azure SF (where I can use ASB and this issue disappears) so I don't want to build two separate systems just because of where I am hosting it in some instances.
Thanks for any tips.
You can build this yourself, for example like this. This uses a BrokerService that will distribute message-data to subscribed services and actors.
You can also run a containerized queuing platform like RabbitMQ with volumes.
By running the queue system inside the cluster you won't introduce an external dependency.
The problem is not SF, The main issue with your design is that you are coupling architectural requirements to implementations. SF runs on top of VirtualMachines, in the end, the only difference is that SF put the services in those machines, using another solution you would have an Agent Deploying these services in there or doing a Manual deployment. The challenges are the same.
It is clear from the description that the requirement in your design is a need for a message queue, the concept of queues are the same does not matter if it is Service Bus, RabbitMQ or MSMQ. Each of then will have the basic foundations of queues with specifics of each implementation, some might add transactions, some might implement multiple patterns, and so on.
If you design based on specific implementation, you will couple your solution to the implementation and make your solution hard to maintain and face challenges like you described.
Solutions like NServiceBus and Masstransit reduce a lot of these coupling from your code, and if you think these are not enough, you can create your own abstraction. Then you use configurations to tied your business logic to implementations.
Despite the above advice, I would not recommend you using different
solutions per environment, because as said previously, each solution
has it's own implementations and they might not assimilate to each other, as example, you might face issues in
production because you developed against MSMQ on DEV and TEST
environments, and when deployed to Production you use ServiceBus, they
have different limitations, like message size, retention period and son
on.
If you are willing to use MSMQ, you can add MSMQ to the VMs running your cluster and connect from your services without any issue. Take a look into this SO first: How can I use MSMQ in Azure Service Fabric
I am new in
Apache ZooKeeper : ZooKeeper is a centralized service for maintaining configuration information, naming, providing distributed synchronization, and providing group services.
Apache Mesos : Apache Mesos is a cluster manager that simplifies the complexity of running applications on a shared pool of servers.
Apache Helix : Apache Helix is a generic cluster management framework used for the automatic management of partitioned, replicated and distributed resources hosted on a cluster of nodes.
Erlang Langauge : Erlang is a programming language used to build massively scalable soft real-time systems with requirements on high availability.
It sounds to me that Helix and Mesos both are useful for Clustering management System. How they are related to ZooKeeper? It'd better if someone give me a real world example for their usage.
I am curious to know How [BOINC][1] are distributing tasks to their clients? Are they using any of the above technologies? (Forget about Erlang).
I just need a brief view on it :)
Erlang was built by Ericsson, designed for use in phone systems. By design, it runs hundreds, thousands, or even 10s of thousands of small processes to handle tasks by sending information between them instead of sharing memory or state. This enables all sorts of interesting features that are great for high availability distributed systems such as:
hot code reloading. Each process is paused, it's relevant module code is swapped out, and it is resumed where it left off, so deploys can happen without restarting or causing significant interruption.
Easy distributed messaging and clustering. Sending a message to a local process or a remote one is fairly seamless in most instances.
Process-local GC. Garbage collection happens in each process independently instead of a global stop-the-world even like java, aiding in low-latency results.
Supervision trees and complex process hierarchy and monitoring/managing.
A few concrete real-world examples that makes great use of Erlang would be:
MongooseIM A highly performant and incredibly scalable, distributed XMPP / Chat server
Riak A distributed key/value store.
Mesos, on the other hand, you can sort of think of as a platform effectively for turning a datacenter of servers into a platform for teams and developers. If I, say as a company, own a datacenter with 10,000 physical servers, and I have 1,000 engineers developing hundreds of services, a good way to allow the engineers to deploy and manage services across that hardware without them needing to worry about the servers directly. It's an abstraction layer over-top of the physical servers to that allows you to share and intelligently allocate resources.
As a user of Mesos, I might say that I have Service X. It's an executable bundle that lives in location Y. Each instance of Service X needs 4 GB of RAM and 2 cores. And I need 8 instances which will be attached to a load balancer. You can specify this in configuration and deploy based on that config. Mesos will find hardware that has enough ram and CPU capacity available to handle each instance of that service and start it running in each of those locations.
It can handle a lot of other more complex topics about the orchestration of them as well, but that's probably a bit in-depth for this :)
Zookeepers most common use cases are Service Discover and configuration management. You can think of it, fundamentally, a bit like a nested key value store, where services can look at pre-defined paths to see where other services currently live.
A simple example is that I have a web service using a shared database cluster. I know a simple name for that database cluster and where the configuration for it lives in zookeeper. I can look up (or repeatedly poll) that path in zookeeper to check what the addresses of the active database hosts are. And on the other side, if I take a database node out of rotation and replace it with a new one, the config in zookeeper gets updated with the new address, and anything continually looking at it will detect this change and change where it's connected to.
A more complex use case for zookeeper is how Kafka uses it (or did at the time that I last used Kafka). Kafka has streams, and streams have many shards. Each consumer of each stream use zookeeper to save checkpoints in each shard after they have read and processed up to a certain point in the stream. That way if the consumer crashes or is restarted, it knows where to pick up in the stream.
I dont know about Meos and Earlang language. But this article might help you with Helix and Zookeeper.
This article tells us:
Zookeeper is responsible for gluing all parts together where Helix is cluster management component that registers all cluster details (cluster itself, nodes, resources).
The article is related to clustering in JBPM using helix and zookeeper.But with this you will get a basic idea on what helix and zookeeper is used for.
And from most of the articles i read online it seems like zookeeper and helix are used together.
Apache Zookeeper can be installed on a single machine or on a cluster.
It can be used to keep track of logs. It can provide various services on a distributed platform.
Storm and Kafka rely on Zookeeper.
Storm uses Zookeeper to store all state so that it can recover from an outage in any of its (distributed) component services.
Kafka queue consumers can use Zookeeper to store information on what has been consumed from the queue.
My management is evaluating non-Azure Microsoft Windows Service Bus (Azure is out of consideration for security reasons). It will be used to setup topic/subscription model with a number of WCF services with netMessagingBinding that we building, so I just have a few basic questions about that.
Are there any specific hardware requirements like dedicated server, dedicated database etc. for WSB to run in production environment?
It's easy to configure WCF service to listen on a specific topic subscription. Is there any way for WCF service to listen to multiple subscriptions?
Appreciate the answers.
You can install the service components and the databases all on one server (that is the default). However, for a number of reasons, we installed the services on a dedicated app server and then created the Service bus databases on an existing database server. The install package allows you to specify a different db server. Check this article for the minimum server requirements
Yes you can get one WCF service to listen to multiple subscriptions. You would need to create two (or more) System.ServiceModel.ServiceHost instances and then run them inside one process. For example we had one windows service running two ServiceHost's. Each host listened at a different queue and therefore implemented a different contract. This meant where queues were logically grouped we didn't need a new windows service per queue. You could do the same with subscriptions.
For question one, you will have to go through the exercise of hardware sizing. the good news is that WCF services can scale vertically, so you can add up servers if there were issues in handling client load.
To do hardware sizing you will have to make an estimate the expected load and then do performance/scalablity testing to figure the load bearing capacity of your serviceBus/services .
you could find a lot of resources for load testing like this one http://seroter.wordpress.com/2011/10/27/testing-out-the-new-appfabric-service-bus-relay-load-balancing/
once you do load testing and come up with the numbers, you can then do sizing using references like this one http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb310550.aspx
Background
My group are complete noobs with MassTransit and messaging in general. I understand the simple demos found online, but I'm confused on how to set things up for non-trivial scenarios. (many producers, many consumers, with consumers communicating back to producers)
We currently make 3rd party web service calls directly from web code via synchronous calls. Some of them are notoriously slow and unreliable to the point of browser timeouts and YSODs that aren't directly our code's fault. We want to replace these sync calls with messages and eventual consistency for retries and poison queue.
We also want to replace various scheduled/batch tasks with messaging to get closer to real time processing instead of waiting for next batch to run.
Our website runs on a farm of 6 IIS servers behind a hardware load balancer. There are 2 additional "application" servers that run the scheduled tasks. I figure we will put our new worker services on the app servers or maybe even all 8 servers.
Questions
So... The "common gotchas" section of the MT docs say that each application needs it's own address. My question is around what exactly is the definition of application in this case.
I have 6 web servers running the website. Does each of these need a unique address or can they all just be "rabbitmq://localhost/MyApp/Website". What if IIS is configured for multiple worker processes? Do each of those also need a different rabbit address?
Same question goes for my 2 application servers. If I'm running the same worker on both boxes does it need different addresses? Some stuff says if you want competing consumers to share an address, but if you want "event" type messages to be delivered to everyone they need to be different addresses.
What if you need both event (broadcast) and command (consumed once) messages sent to a worker cluster? (Multiple instances of the same workers to handle more load.)
What if I have consumers hosted in the web application directly? (I'm not sure this is a good idea to start with.)
What about request/response messages? I assume the responses should go back to the originating web server. Otherwise the MT request call will never unblock or at best timeout.
Each instance of an IServiceBus needs it's own RecieveFrom address. And yeah, if there are multiple worker processes, each should have it's own queue. You can use temporary queue for this though in web apps.
For competing consumers, each process/IServiceBus that is one of the consumes should be an exact copy. If there's an event that doesn't need to be competing, then it needs to have it's own process.
I am working with silverlight project that is consuming domain services. Actually i find that quite messy as one domain service class and metadata. I have already worked with Wcf services and found them very easy to update and handle. But domain service's modification (as new field or tables are added) is really a pain.
I want to know why people prefer domain services over silverlight enabled Wcf services? I mean advantages or disadvantages of both and performance implication
After goggling i found this are things you should see :
To authenticate users faster in the domain
To authenticate resources(gps etc) faster for the users
Utilization of resources
Utilization of network and descreasing the overall traffic in the
network.
The main benefit is that of the users and passwords management, which
could grow to be massive amount of work having to manage them
individually on each independent servers. The proposed changes of
migrating the whole platform to Active Directory environment will
assist in propagating the changes (such as new users, password
changes, new security requirements via GPO, etc) on to the servers
(which will run as domain clients, only 1 or 2 will run Primary and
Secondary ADC. Not all these servers are going to run host AD or be
an ADC, server OS is used due to it's robustness and reliability).
disadvantage
cost of infrastructure
good planning is must
Complex structure for user