I am considering using a Network Load Balancer to load balance messages between my subscriber instances, instead of using the NServiceBus distributor (which is basically just a software load-balancer from what I can tell). Each subscriber instance will have a queue of the same name for messages to be delivered to, and there will be a virtual IP that round-robins between the subscribers. The publisher will only know about the virtual IP and queue name.
Here is what I understand as the pros and cons of doing this:
PROS
No need to install NServiceBus Distributor
One less thing that would need to be managed/updated when we are scaling-out (we already use an F5 to load balance these machines, and our data center buys know it like the back of their hand)
One less point of failure (yes, the NLB could fail, but let's face it, an F5 is going to be a lot more stable than NServiceBus Distributor running on Windows)
No need to have a clustered server to have our clustered MSMQ. 2 servers is a lot more expensive than just adding another VIP to an F5.
CONS
The NServiceBus Distributor allows you to see the backlog of messages more easily since there is a single queue on the Distributor you can monitor. This makes it easy to know when you should add more worker nodes.
The NServiceBus Distributor is smarter about controlling of number of worker threads, etc. Gives you more control than an NLB? (not sure about this one)
Have I captured this accurately? I know it is recommended to use the NServiceBus Distributor, and I would like to know more of why before I go against that recommendation.
Youve' got some of the main points down, but one of the main differences is that since the distributor holds on to load itself, if a machine were to go down, the rest of the load would be distributed between the remaining machines with a much lower SLA impact on the messages.
Related
We're a licensed product using NServiceBus as the messaging framework in our federated system.
Looking for opportunities for using it in a new feature-
Is there a way to build a multi-site system (scaled-out), at which each site/node produces and distributes messages to workers located on several nodes/sites?
Each distributor and worker can be hosted at it's own site (same LAN), and each site can go down at any point. All distributors and workers should be symmetric.
At first it looked like a classical "many producers to many competing consumers" problem. but I can't find a built-in way to achieve it with NServiceBus as, from what I saw, each worker can send health sings to only one distributor (I might be wrong about that).
Another issue I came against is with having a centralized RavenDB instance holding the distributor subscriptions. Having the RavenDB in it's own "availability group" requires additional resources. Is there a way to host the RavenDB instance under the same sites, having their data replicated while each site is using it's local DB instance? This will also bind the HA of the distributors to their subscription DB's.
Reading this discussion- http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/nservicebus/message/18412
It seems that NServiceBus requires a cluster to keep HA of the published data. But why can’t the distributor wait for an acknowledge that the msg was successfully consumed & processed by the worker, and keep retrying to publish it to the same or a different worker? This way, even if the VM went down with data in the queues, the data will be sent to another node which is available at that time.
Edit: Tried to ask the same at NServiceBus official Yahoo group but keep getting pythonError within the yahoo group.
Thanks in advance,
Rami Prilutsky, dbMotion
Assume you have a small rabbitmq system of 3 nodes that is supposed to handle 100+ decently high volume queues in the same exchange. Given that queues only exist on the node they are created on (we're not using replicated, High Availability queues), what's the best way to create the queues? Is there any benefit to having the queues distributed among the cluster nodes, or is it better to keep them all on one node and have rmq do the routing?
It depends on your application, really.
RabbitMQ is smart about sending messages, so it'll only send a message to a node in the cluster if
a queue that holds that message resides on that node or
if a consumer has connected to that node and has requested the message.
In general, you should aim to declare queues on the nodes on which both the publishers and the consumers for that queue will connect to. In other words, you should aim to connect publishers and consumers to the node that holds the queues they use. This assumes you're trying to conserve bandwidth used overall.
If you're using clustering to improve throughput (and you probably are), and you don't care about internal bandwidth used, you should aim to connect your publishers/consumers to the nodes in a balanced way and not worry about the internal routing mechanisms.
One last thing to think about is memory and disk-space. Queues store messages in main memory, and fallback to disk if that's insufficient. So, if you declare all your queues in one place, that'll result in one node that's "over-worked" and two nodes with memory to spare.
As part of a move towards redundancy and failover in an application I'm working on, I've just finished setting up a RabbitMQ cluster behind a proxy, and have all of my publishers and consumers connect via the proxy, which round robins connections to the individual nodes as they come in from the clients. Prior to upgrading RabbitMQ to 2.7.1, this seemed to pretty evenly distribute queues to the separate nodes, though this would of course depend pretty heavily on how your proxy balances the requests and when your clients try to connect (and declare a queue)...
Having said all that, I just upgraded to RabbitMQ 2.7.1, which was pretty painless, and gave us HA queues, which is a pretty big win for our apps. At any rate, if you're interested in the set up, and think it would be of benefit to your queue problem, I'd be happy to share the setup.
Please consider the following questions in the context of multiple publications from a scaled out publisher (using DB subscription storage) and multiple subscriptions with scaled out subscribers (using distributors) where installs and uninstalls happen regularly for initial deployments, upgrades, etc. using automated MSI's.
Using DB subscription storage, what happens if the DB goes down? If access to the Subscription DB is required in order to Publish a message, how will it be delivered? Will it get lost? Will the call to Bus.Publish throw an exception?
Assuming you need to have no down-time deployments: What if you want to move your subscription DB for a particular publication to a different server? How do you manage a transition like this?
Same question goes for a distributor on the subscriber side: What if you want to move your distributor endpoint? One scenario I can think of is if you have multiple subscriptions utilizing a single distributor machine, it might be hard if you want to move some of them to another distributor server to reduce load.
What would the install/uninstall scenarios look like for a setup like this (both initially, and for continuous upgrades)? It seems like you would want to have some special install/uninstall scripts for deployment of the "logical publication" and subscription DB, as well as for the "logical subscriptions" and the distributors. The publisher instances wouldn't need any special install/uninstall logic (since they just start publishing messages using the configured subscription DB, and then stop when they are uninstalled). The subscriber worker nodes wouldn't need anything special on install other than the correct configuration of the distributor endpoint, but would need uninstall logic to make sure they are removed from the distributors list of worker nodes.
Eventually the publisher will fail and the messages will build up in the internal queue. You will have to plan the size of disk you need to handle this based on the message size and how long you want to wait for a DB to come up. From there it is based how much downtime you can handle. You can use DB mirroring or clustering to make the DB have less downtime.
Mirroring and clustering technologies can also help with this. Depends on if you want to do manual or automatic failover and where your doing it(remote sites?).
Clustering MSMQ could help you here. If you want to drop a distributor and move it within a cluster you'd be ok. Another possibility is to expose your distributors via HTTP and load balance them behind either a software or hardware load balancing solution. Behind the load balancer you'd be more free to move things around.
Sounds like you have a good grasp on this one already :)
To your first question, about the high availability of the subscription DB, you can use a cluster for failover. If the DB is down, then the Bus.Publish will throw an exception, yes. It is recommended to keep the subscription DB separate from your applicative DB to avoid having to bring it down when upgrading your app. This doesn't have to be a separate DB server, a separate DB on the same DB server will be fine.
About moving servers, this is usually managed at a DNS level where for a certain period of time you'll have both running, until communication moves over.
On your third question about distributors - don't share a distributor between different publishers or subscribers.
As a rule of thumb, it is recommended to not add/remove subscribers when doing these kinds of maintainenance activities. This usually simplifies things quite a bit.
I need to build Identity server like Microsoft's http://login.live.com.
To handle failover I will have multiple web servers nodes. The plan is that all database write operations are done by sending messages to the database server. Database will be mirrored or replicated. The idea is that database subscribes to the write operations but that other nodes subscribe also. That way other nodes do not need to read from database and can update their caches.
I am just starting to learn the service bus architecture and what is not clear to me is how to handle failover scenario for the service bus.
Question:
If database server is not available, what will happen with the published messages ?
Will they be stored somewhere and where ?
Do I need additional machine or a cluster to handle failover of the service bus?
I read that SQL Server can be used as a message store but can I use durable MSMQ? I am queuing messages to be able to write them to the database so why would I store them to the DB first just to take them and write them again? OR, I am getting this wrong and DB is only used for the list of subscriptions and not for the Messages?
Whe implementing this kind of architecture, you should look at applying the principles of CQRS - queries (is this user/pwd combo valid) should not be done via the bus; commands (change pwd, forgot pwd) are sent via the bus, not published as events. While internally you will likely use events to keep the command and query sides in sync, this doesn't involve the client.
Queries can be done using simple ado.net against the replicated-read-slaves of your DB - what's known as the persistent view model in CQRS. If you like, you can put some simple WCF in front of that too.
When using MSMQ, all messages are delivered via store-and-forward. That means that they're first stored on the client before being delivered to the server, so if the server is down, the messages sit on the client waiting. For fault-tolerance, you will want your messages to be recoverable (written to disk) - this is the default in NServiceBus but not the default of standard MSMQ (don't know about MassTransit). You don't need the database for this.
In NServiceBus, the bus is not installed on a separate machine so you don't need to deal with its availability independently of the rest of the system. It's only when you look at scaling our your command processing to more nodes that you might consider using the message-based load balancer in NServiceBus (called the distributor) which, for high availability, should be installed on a cluster or fault-tolerant hardware.
This will depend on how it is setup, but in MassTransit you can leave the subscription active so the message will still be delivered to the queue for the DB. When the DB is active again, you can read the messages in the queue.
Each service connected to a service bus, in MassTransit, has an active queue for itself. The messages will be stored there.
I think this is a "it depends"... MassTransit has support for other MQs than MSMQ but is really built around MSMQ. We have no experienced great support for things such as failover from MSMQ. However, everything will continue to run without fault if the subscription service (i.e. the bus) fails - the services already know who to talk to. It's only when a change in a consumer (subscribe or unsubscribe) where this becomes a problem. For me, that's an event that happens almost never.
With MassTransit, we use the DB to store the subscription states but all the messages are stored in MSMQ.
If you'd like more details in one of these responses or have additional questions about MT, you can join us on the mailing list: http://groups.google.com/group/masstransit-discuss.
I've been asked by my team leader to investigate MSMQ as an option for the new version of our product. We use SQL Service Broker in our current version. I've done my fair share of experimentation and Googling to find which product is better for my needs, but I thought I'd ask the best site I know for programming answers.
Some details:
Our client is .NET 1.1 and 2.0 code; this is where the message will be sent from.
The target in a SQL Server 2005 instance. All messages end up being database updates or inserts.
We will send several updates that must be treated as a transaction.
We have to have perfect message recoverability; no messages can be lost.
We have to be asynchronous and able to accept messages even when the target SQL server is down.
Developing our own queuing solution isn't an option; we're a small team.
Things I've discovered so far:
Both MSMQ and SQL Service Broker can do the job.
It appears that service broker is faster for transactional messages.
Service Broker requires a SQL server running somewhere, whereas MSMQ needs any configured Windows machine running somewhere.
MSMQ appears to be better/faster/easier to set up/run in clusters.
Am I missing something? Is there a clear winner here? Any thoughts, experiences, or links would be valued. Thank you!
EDIT: We ended up sticking with service broker because we have a custom DB framework used in some of our client code (we handle transactions better). That code captured SQL for transactions, but not . The client code was also all version 1.1 of .NET, so we'd have to upgrade all the client code. Thanks for your help!
Having just migrated my application from Service Broker to MSMQ, I would have to vote for using MSMQ. There are several factors to take into account, but most of which have to do with how you are using your data and where the processing lives.
If processing is done in the database? Service Broker
If it is just data move? Service Broker
Is processing done in .NET/COM code? MSMQ
Do you need remote distributed transactions (for example, processing on a box different than SQL)? MSMQ
Do you need to be able to send messages while the destination is down? MSMQ
Do you want to use nServiceBus, MassTransit, Rhino-ESB, etc.? MSMQ
Things to consider no matter what you choose
How do you know the health of your queue? Both options handle failover differently. For example Service Broker will disable your queue in certain scenarios which can take down your application.
How will you perform reporting? If you already use SQL Tables in your reports, Service Broker can easily fit in as it's just another dynamic table. If you are already using Performance Monitor MSMQ may fit in nicer. Service Broker does have a lot of performance counters, so don't let this be your only factor.
How do you measure uptime? Is it merely making sure you don't lose transactions, or do you need to respond synchronously? I find that the distributed nature of MSMQ allows for higher uptime because the main queue can go offline and not lose anything. Whereas with Service Broker your database must be online or else you lose out.
Do you already have experience with one of these technologies? Both have a lot of implementation details that can come back and bite you.
No mater what choice you make, how easy is it to switch out the underlying Queueing technology? I recommend having a generic IQueue interface that you write a concrete implementation against. This way the choice you make can easily be changed later on if you find that you made the wrong one. After all, a queue is just a queue and should not lock you into a specific implementation.
I've used MSMQ before and the only item I'd add to your list is a prerequisite check for versioning. I ran into an issue where one site had Win 2000 Server and therefore MSMQ v.2, versus Win 2003 Server and MSMQ v3. All my .NET code targeted v.3 and they aren't compatible... or at least not easily so.
Just a consideration if you go the MSMQ route.
The message size limitation in MSMQ has halted my digging in that direction. I am learning Service Broker for the project.
Do you need to be able to send messages while the destination is down? MSMQ
I don't understand why? SSB can send messages to disconnected destination without any problem. All this messages going to transmission queue and would be delivered when destination stay reachable.