cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Darren Shepherd" <>
Subject RE: [Discuss] CloudStack architecture to a loosely-coupled component oriented distributed architecture
Date Mon, 20 Aug 2012 17:02:35 GMT

This is just a random implementation note.  Beware of DB transactions
and events.  Events shouldn't be sent until DB transactions are
committed.  If you don't give consideration to this upfront, you
suddenly have craziness ensuing or one creates an overly complex system
to tie DB transactions and event propagation into one framework.


> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [Discuss] CloudStack architecture to a loosely-coupled
> component oriented distributed architecture
> From: Murali Reddy <>
> Date: Sun, August 19, 2012 10:29 pm
> To: ""
> <>
> On 16/08/12 11:27 PM, "Kelven Yang" <> wrote:
> >
> >On 8/15/12 10:57 PM, "Alex Huang" <> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>
> >>I don't think Murali and Kelven's proposals are related.  Murali's is a
> >>notification system so that someone who doesn't even want to know about
> >>cloudstack's code can still interface with cloudstack and react to entity
> >>changes.  Kelven's defines the ipc mechanism used by cloudstack
> >>components.  I think it's best for these two to grow separately.  Now
> >>it's possible that the underlying mechanism to implement these two ends
> >>up to be the same thing but at least their semantics should be different.
> >>
> >>--Alex
> >>
> >
> >
> >As alex pointed, there are some differences between the two. I know that
> >in our current code base we use a lot of in-process listener-callback
> >pattern to encapsulate isolated logic in different modules for better
> >modularization. Inside the same component, this pattern applies perfectly.
> >However, when we come to a distributed world, unless the logic semantic
> >implies that this can be decoupled in disconnected fashion, we should not
> >use the listener-callback patter across components, it assumes strong
> >coupling, if the business logic requires such strong semantics, it should
> >go through in orchestration process so that the flow state can be managed
> >in terms of component failures.
> >   
> >Kelven
> >
> I do agree that what I am trying to do it an 'event notification system'
> by which components external to CloudStack gets a push notification of a
> resource state change in CloudStack, and the 'message event' proposed by
> Kelven is more of IPC mechanism for CloudStack components to interact in
> distributed architecture. But there are areas which seems to overlap
> significantly which needs to be discussed.
> Kelven, can you please elaborate a bit on 'message event' in your proposal
> which seems to main IPC between the components? I am planning to introduce
> a state machine with every virtual/physical resource that CloudStack
> manages and generate events on the state change where subscribers are
> external components. If your plan is to have an event-driven architecture
> where orchestration engine and network/storage/compute components perform
> a work flow with exchange of resource state change (or required state
> change events) then same MOM (message oriented middleware) and pub-sub
> semantics can be shared except for the topic/channel will differ. If your
> plan is IPC to be message oriented or RPC over message queue semantics
> then at least that MOM is a common infrastructure piece on which both IPC
> and pub/sub event notifications can be built. Let me know your thoughts on
> these.
> Redis, seems to be good messaging middleware, but is it in-memory? can it
> scale and run as cluster? How does it weigh againest AMQP as MOM
> middleware for CloudStack?

View raw message