incubator-s4-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matthieu Morel <mmo...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Thoughts on adding guaranteed message processing
Date Thu, 09 Aug 2012 09:22:54 GMT
Hi,

Is it worth trying to achieve exactly-once or even at-least-once event 
processing semantics, which are not useful for applications that process 
streams in a statistical manner? It seems there are quite a few users 
and applications interested in these semantics, and that can tolerate 
the exceptional extra latency due to recovery. And indeed combining 
checkpointing with an inbound logging mechanism such as something based 
on Hedwig/Bookkeeper or Kafka is a possible approach. But it is not 
sufficient, since - implementation-wise - we also have to add some 
tracking of the messages, a mechanism to avoid load shedding by holding 
upstream processes, and probably some kind of coordination messages or 
mechanism.

As Leo pointed out, this can get quite complex, and involvement is 
use-case driven and therefore depends on use cases 
committers/contributors are facing and directly involved with.

So maybe an incremental approach would be worth following:

1. minimize errors (this implies providing metrics, and some other 
things Leo may have in mind)
2. control load shedding by notifying upstream processing and 
potentially holding upstream processes (optional of course)
3. integrate with replayable inbound logging systems such as Kafka or 
Hedwig/logstage,
4. implement a mechanism for coordinating recovery

Each step brings very valuable benefits and we can adapt based on use 
cases we are facing, workload, participants, priorities etc...

For now, we already scheduled adding insightful metrics in the next 
version. 2 and 3 look fairly easy to implement.


Regards,

Matthieu






On 8/8/12 11:13 PM, Flavio Junqueira wrote:
> Roughly applications can either afford to lose events or not. If an app can't afford
to lose events, then it does not make much good to reduce the amount of lost events.   One
way to achieve fault tolerance is to log events, using e.g. BookKeeper. BookKeeper is both
replicated and fast.
>
> Just logging, however, is not sufficient. If you can't stall the source, then guaranteeing
no event loss might be very difficult in the case recovery can be arbitrarily long. In such
cases, the amount of storage for logging required is unbounded.
>
> Along those lines, Matthieu has developed a system on top of BookKeeper (Hedwig to be
more precise) called log stage; it might be useful in this context. What do you think, Matthieu?
>
> -Flavio
>
> On Aug 7, 2012, at 8:37 PM, Leo Neumeyer wrote:
>
>> Hi all. Some thoughts.
>>
>> Building a fault tolerant system would require queuing N events at the
>> source. The length of the queue would depend on the frequency of
>> checkpointing. Post failure, the system would need to restore the state of
>> the node from checkpointing and re-apply all the events emitted since the
>> time of checkpointing. To increase reliability, we would also need to
>> replicate the nodes. One would also need to account for the peak data rate
>> to make sure there is enough capacity to re-process all the data and comply
>> with the real-time constrains.
>>
>> All of this is possible but I'm not sure this is the best platform for
>> applications that expect zero errors. It was designed for processing large
>> amounts of data in application that can tolerate a small probability of
>> error. Improving the platform to reduce the errors is much simpler than
>> trying to achieve zero errors.
>>
>> Perhaps a better approach is to have good error detection so the
>> application can handle the recovery at a higher level (not in real-time).
>>
>> Rather than try to solve ALL the problems, I think that it is better to
>> focus on problems that involve statistical processing of massive amounts of
>> noisy and redundant data where a small probability of errors will not
>> affect the accuracy of the results. (text processing, signal processing,
>> sensor data, market data, etc.) The advantage of focusing is that we can
>> solve one problem well and keep the system as simple as possible.
>>
>> Regarding the reliability at the communication layer, using TCP should work
>> fine, I think.
>>
>> Of course sending email is easy, I wish I had more time to put my code
>> where my mouth is :-)
>>
>> -leo
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 10:15 AM, Karthik Kambatla <kkambatl@cs.purdue.edu>wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Flavio,
>>>
>>> We are in agreement. I was trying to push the discussion further, and get
>>> your inputs to decide on a plausible approach in S4.
>>>
>>> Regarding exactly-once semantics, I understand we need to plug multiple
>>> holes in a failing environment. To ensure we actually can support reliable
>>> delivery, should we outline possible failures and how they can be
>>> addressed. I might be able to think threw and list the steps (and possible
>>> failures) later today/tomorrow.
>>>
>>> On a side note, I remember Kishore and Leo initiating a conversation on
>>> using ZeroMQ in the comm-layer. ZeroMQ, I have heard, supports reliable
>>> delivery, and they claim to be faster than TCP.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Karthik
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 6:53 AM, Flavio Junqueira <fpj@yahoo-inc.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I didn't mean to suggest a different way, I was trying to understand the
>>>> definition of exactly-once. As for the use case Benjamin has posted, he
>>>> says that not even a single tag scan can be lost, but can we guarantee
>>> that
>>>> events are reliably delivered at-least-once with S4?
>>>>
>>>> -Flavio
>>>>
>>>> On Aug 7, 2012, at 7:38 AM, Karthik Kambatla wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Given that nodes crash, it seems essential to build reliability like
it
>>>> is
>>>>> in lower layers - think TCP. One trivial approach could be to use
>>>>> monotonically increasing sequence numbers to identify events in a
>>> stream.
>>>>>
>>>>>   1. Event ordering: Hold events until all the previous sequence
>>> numbers
>>>>>   have been received.
>>>>>   2. Exactly-once: If a sequence number is smaller than previous one,
>>> it
>>>>>   is a duplicate.
>>>>>   3. Fault-tolerance: Store the latest sequence number along with the
>>>>>   checkpoint, replay events from there onwards.
>>>>>
>>>>> This, of course, comes at a performance overhead and should be
>>> optional.
>>>>>
>>>>> As I said, this is the first approach that comes to mind. It is indeed
>>> an
>>>>> interesting problem, and I feel we should not need to re-do stuff that
>>> is
>>>>> done at lower layers.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please suggest improvements/alternatives as you see fit.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>> Karthik
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 10:01 PM, Flavio Junqueira <fpj@yahoo-inc.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Aug 6, 2012, at 10:11 PM, Karthik Kambatla wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Flavio - it is indeed tricky to offer exactly-once semantics. My
>>>>>> understanding is that the underlying comm-layer could filter out
>>>> subsequent
>>>>>> duplicate events; however, we need to sacrifice ordering.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I was also thinking that if a node crash and we recover from
>>>> checkpoints,
>>>>>> we may end up having messages applied twice.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Flavio
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>> Karthik
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 6:43 AM, "Benjamin Süß" <Gothic13@gmx.de>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Matthieu,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> thank you for your reply. I had a specific use case in mind,
indeed:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am trying to track RFID tags in distributed systems. This means,
>>> that
>>>>>>> not even a single tag scan may get lost. And of course, none
are to
>>> be
>>>> sent
>>>>>>> twice or even more often as this would heavily confuse any
>>> surveillance
>>>>>>> routines I am going to implement.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regarding your answers, especially point 3, I do not think this
can
>>> be
>>>>>>> done with S4 at the moment, can it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> Benjamin
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -------- Original-Nachricht --------
>>>>>>>> Datum: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 17:30:27 +0200
>>>>>>>> Von: Matthieu Morel <mmorel@apache.org>
>>>>>>>> An: s4-user@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>>>> Betreff: Re: Thoughts on adding guaranteed message processing
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 7/31/12 2:54 PM, "Benjamin Süß" wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hi there,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> it is stated in several places that S4 does not include
guaranteed
>>>>>>>> one-time message processing. So my question is: are there
currently
>>>> any
>>>>>>> plans on
>>>>>>>> adding this to S4? Or is it certain this is not going to
happen? If
>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>> are any plans on this, can I find further information somewhere?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There are typically 3 requirements for guaranteeing one-time
message
>>>>>>>> processing:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1. reliable communication channels
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2. replayable input stream: you need an upstream component
that is
>>>> able
>>>>>>>> to store/bufferize the whole stream and replay on demand.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 3. tracking of messages, using some sort of piggybacking,
possibly
>>>>>>>> requiring manual input from the user.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In S4 0.5.0, we already address 1. by providing communications
>>> through
>>>>>>>> TCP by default. Requirement 2. is quite straightforward to
>>> implement,
>>>> by
>>>>>>>> adding some machinery to connect to a component such as Apache
Kafka
>>>> for
>>>>>>>> instance. We are considering options for 3.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do you have a specific use case in mind?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Matthieu
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> *Leo Neumeyer*
>> Software, data, algorithms.
>> leoneumeyer@gmail.com
>> *http://www.linkedin.com/in/leoneu*
>>
>> See who we know in
>> common<http://www.linkedin.com/e/wwk/27360/?hs=false&tok=3SHIsP1c6dURk1>Want
>> a signature like
>> this?<http://www.linkedin.com/e/sig/27360/?hs=false&tok=0r9XKRwP2dURk1>
>


Mime
View raw message