Reactive Design Patterns — J on the Beach
•
7 likes•3,329 views
Our software needs to become reactive, this realization is widely understood: we need to consider responsiveness, maintainability, elasticity and scalability from the outset. Not all systems need to implement all these to the same degree, specific project requirements will determine where effort is most wisely spent, but in the vast majority of cases the need to go reactive will demand that we design our applications differently. In this presentation we explore several architecture elements that are commonly found in reactive systems (like the circuit breaker, various replication techniques, or flow control protocols). These patterns are language agnostic and also independent of the abundant choice of reactive programming frameworks and libraries, they are well-specified starting points for exploring the design space of a concrete problem: thinking is strictly required!
Report
Share
Reactive Design Patterns — J on the Beach
- 1. Reactive Design Patterns Dr. Roland Kuhn @rolandkuhn — CTO Actyx AG
- 2. Reactive Design Patterns • currently in MEAP • all chapters done, in pre-production • use code 39kuhn (39% off), see http://rolandkuhn.com 2
- 3. Reactive?
- 4. Elasticity: Performance at Scale 4
- 5. Resilience: Don’t put all eggs in one basket! 5
- 6. Result: Responsiveness • elastic components that scale with their load • responses in the presence of partial failures 6
- 7. Result: Decoupling • containment of • failures • implementation details • responsibility • shared-nothing architecture, clear boundaries 7
- 8. Result: Maintainability & Fexibility • decoupled responsibility—decoupled teams • develop pieces at their own pace • continuous delivery • Microservices: Single Responsibility Principle 8
- 9. Implementation: Message-Driven • focus on communication between components • model message flows and protocols • common transports: async HTTP, *MQ, Actors 9
- 10. Reactive Traits 10 elastic resilient responsive maintainable extensible message-‐driven Value Means Form
- 12. Basically: Microservices Best Practices • Simple Component Pattern • DeMarco in «Structured analysis and system specification» (Yourdon, New York, 1979) • “maximize cohesion and minimize coupling” • Let-It-Crash Pattern • Candea & Fox: “Crash-Only Software” (USENIX HotOS IX, 2003) • Error Kernel Pattern • Erlang (late 1980’s) 12
- 14. Request–Response Pattern 14 «Include a return address in the message in order to receive a response.»
- 16. Request–Response Pattern • return address is often implicit: • HTTP response over same TCP connection • automatic sender reference capture in Akka • explicit return address is needed otherwise • *MQ • Akka Typed • correlation ID needed for long-lived participants 16
- 17. Circuit Breaker Pattern 17 «Protect services by breaking the connection during failure periods.»
- 18. Circuit Breaker Pattern • well-known, inspired by electrical engineering • first published by M. Nygard in «Release It!» • protects both ways: • allows client to avoid long failure timeouts • gives service some breathing room to recover 18
- 19. Circuit Breaker Example 19 private object StorageFailed extends RuntimeException private def sendToStorage(job: Job): Future[StorageStatus] = { // make an asynchronous request to the storage subsystem val f: Future[StorageStatus] = ??? // map storage failures to Future failures to alert the breaker f.map { case StorageStatus.Failed => throw StorageFailed case other => other } } private val breaker = CircuitBreaker( system.scheduler, // used for scheduling timeouts 5, // number of failures in a row when it trips 300.millis, // timeout for each service call 30.seconds) // time before trying to close after tripping def persist(job: Job): Future[StorageStatus] = breaker .withCircuitBreaker(sendToStorage(job)) .recover { case StorageFailed => StorageStatus.Failed case _: TimeoutException => StorageStatus.Unknown case _: CircuitBreakerOpenException => StorageStatus.Failed }
- 20. Multiple-Master Replication Patterns 20 «Keep multiple distributed copies, accept updates everywhere, disseminate updates among replicas.»
- 21. Multiple-Master Replication Patterns • this is a tough problem with no perfect solution • requires a trade-off to be made between consistency and availability • consensus-based focuses on consistency • conflict-free focuses on availability • conflict resolution gives up a bit of both • each requires a different programming model and can express different transactional behavior 21
- 22. Consensus-Based Replication • strong coupling between replicas to ensure that all are “on the same page” • unavailable during network outages or certain machine failures • programming model “just like a single thread” • Postgres, Zookeeper, etc. 22
- 23. Replication with Conflict Resolution • requires conflict detection • resolution without user intervention will have to discard some updates • detection/resolution unavailable during partitions • programming model “like single thread” with caveat • popular RDBMS in default configuration offer this 23
- 24. Conflict-Free Replication • express updates such that they can be merged • cannot express “non-local” constraints • all expressible updates can be performed under any conditions without losses or inconsistencies • replicas may temporarily be out of sync • different programming model, explicitly distributed • Riak 2.0, Akka Distributed Data 24
- 25. Multiple-Master Replication Patterns • no one size fits all • you will have to think and decide! 25
- 26. Saga Pattern 26 «Divide long-lived distributed transactions into quick local ones with compensating actions for recovery.»
- 27. Saga Pattern: Background • Microservice Architecture means distribution of knowledge, no more central database instance • Pat Helland: • “Life Beyond Distributed Transactions”, CIDR 2007 • “Memories, Guesses, and Apologies”, MSDN blog 2007 • What about transactions that affect multiple microservices? 27
- 28. Saga Pattern • Garcia-Molina & Salem: “SAGAS”, ACM, 1987 • Bank transfer avoiding lock of both accounts: • T₁: transfer money from X to local working account • T₂: transfer money from local working account to Y • C₁: compensate failure by transferring money back to X • Compensating transactions are executed during Saga rollback • concurrent Sagas can see intermediate state 28
- 29. Saga Pattern • backward recovery: T₁ T₂ T₃ C₃ C₂ C₁ • forward recovery with save-points: T₁ (sp) T₂ (sp) T₃ (sp) T₄ • in practice Sagas need to be persistent to recover after hardware failures, meaning backward recovery will also use save-points 29
- 30. Example: Bank Transfer 30 trait Account { def withdraw(amount: BigDecimal, id: Long): Future[Unit] def deposit(amount: BigDecimal, id: Long): Future[Unit] } case class Transfer(amount: BigDecimal, x: Account, y: Account) sealed trait Event case class TransferStarted(amount: BigDecimal, x: Account, y: Account) extends Event case object MoneyWithdrawn extends Event case object MoneyDeposited extends Event case object RolledBack extends Event
- 31. Example: Bank Transfer 31 class TransferSaga(id: Long) extends PersistentActor { import context.dispatcher override val persistenceId: String = s"transaction-$id" override def receiveCommand: PartialFunction[Any, Unit] = { case Transfer(amount, x, y) => persist(TransferStarted(amount, x, y))(withdrawMoney) } def withdrawMoney(t: TransferStarted): Unit = { t.x.withdraw(t.amount, id).map(_ => MoneyWithdrawn).pipeTo(self) context.become(awaitMoneyWithdrawn(t.amount, t.x, t.y)) } def awaitMoneyWithdrawn(amount: BigDecimal, x: Account, y: Account): Receive = { case m @ MoneyWithdrawn => persist(m)(_ => depositMoney(amount, x, y)) } ... }
- 32. Example: Bank Transfer 32 def depositMoney(amount: BigDecimal, x: Account, y: Account): Unit = { y.deposit(amount, id) map (_ => MoneyDeposited) pipeTo self context.become(awaitMoneyDeposited(amount, x)) } def awaitMoneyDeposited(amount: BigDecimal, x: Account): Receive = { case Status.Failure(ex) => x.deposit(amount, id) map (_ => RolledBack) pipeTo self context.become(awaitRollback) case MoneyDeposited => persist(MoneyDeposited)(_ => context.stop(self)) } def awaitRollback: Receive = { case RolledBack => persist(RolledBack)(_ => context.stop(self)) }
- 33. Example: Bank Transfer 33 override def receiveRecover: PartialFunction[Any, Unit] = { var start: TransferStarted = null var last: Event = null { case t: TransferStarted => { start = t; last = t } case e: Event => last = e case RecoveryCompleted => last match { case null => // wait for initialization case t: TransferStarted => withdrawMoney(t) case MoneyWithdrawn => depositMoney(start.amount, start.x, start.y) case MoneyDeposited => context.stop(self) case RolledBack => context.stop(self) } } }
- 34. Saga Pattern: Reactive Full Circle • Garcia-Molina & Salem note: • “search for natural divisions of the work being performed” • “it is the database itself that is naturally partitioned into relatively independent components” • “the database and the saga should be designed so that data passed from one sub-transaction to the next via local storage is minimized” • fully aligned with Simple Components and isolation 34
- 35. Conclusion
- 36. Conclusion • reactive systems are distributed • this requires new (old) architecture patterns • … helped by new (old) code patterns & abstractions • none of this is dead easy: thinking is required! 36