I'm working on an open-source web crawling project. I noticed that the application occasionally flood the websites it's crawling with requests (I get back 429 Too Many Requests). Because of this, I want to limit the concurrent request count to one with a one-second delay between requests for the same domain.
I figured out this code to do that:
Flux.generate(downloaderQueueConsumer)
.doFirst(this::initializeProcessing)
.flatMap(this::evaluateDocumentLocation)
.groupBy(this::parseDocumentDomain, 100000)
.flatMap(documentSourceItem1 -> documentSourceItem1
.delayElements(Duration.ofSeconds(1))
.doOnNext(this::incrementProcessedCount)
.flatMap(this::downloadDocument)
.flatMap(this::archiveDocument)
.doOnNext(this::incrementArchivedCount)
)
.doFinally(this::finishProcessing)
.subscribe();
My problem with this code is that it doesn't limit parallel request count to a domain to one. Is there a way to achieve that?
You'd probably need to maintain some sort of state external to the Flux if you wanted to do it this way - there's no obvious way to store and alter this sort of mutable data within the Flux itself.
That being said, this isn't the approach I'd recommend for rate limiting - I've instead done something similar to the following which is a nicer and more robust solution:
Map a 429 status code to a "rate limit" exception (you'll likely need to define this exception type yourself)
Pull in reactor-extra, then use Retry to use exponential backoff with jitter (or whatever backoff strategy you prefer.)
This will give you more control over your specific retry strategy as well as likely making your code more readable.
Related
So what I have understood from the docs is that parallel Flux is that essentially divided the flux elements into separate rails.(Essentially something like grouping). And as far as thread is considered, it would be the job of schedulers. So let's consider a situation like this. And all this will be run on the same scheduler instance provided via runOn() methods.
Let's consider a situation like below:
Mono<Response> = webClientCallAPi(..) //function returning Mono from webclient call
Now let's say we make around 100 calls
Flux.range(0,100).subscribeOn(Schedulers.boundedElastic()).flatMap(i -> webClientCallApi(i)).collecttoList() // or subscribe somehow
and if we use paralleFlux:
Flux.range(0,100).parallel().runOn(Schedulers.boundedElastic()).flatMap(i -> webClientCallApi(i)).sequential().collecttoList();
So if my understanding is correct, it pretty much seems to be similar. So what are the advantages of ParallelFlux over Flux and when should you use parallelFlux over flux?
In practice, you'll likely very rarely need to use a parallel flux, including in this example.
In your example, you're firing off 100 web service calls. Bear in mind the actual work needed to do this is very low - you generate and fire off an asynchronous request, and then some time later you receive a response back. In between that request & response you're not doing any work at all, it simply takes a tiny amount of CPU resources when each request is sent, and another tiny about when each response is received. (This is one of the core advantages of using an asynchronous framework to make your web requests, you're not tying up any threads while the request is in-flight.)
If you split this flux and run it in parallel, you're saying that you want these tiny amounts of CPU resources to be split so they can run simultaneously, on different CPU cores. This makes absolutely no sense - the overhead of splitting the flux, running it in parallel and then combining it later is going to be much, much greater than just leaving it to execute on a normal, sequential scheduler.
On the other hand, let's say I had a Flux<Integer> and I wanted to check if each of those integers was a prime for example - or perhaps a Flux<String> of passwords that I wanted to check against a BCrypt hash. Those sorts of operations are genuinely CPU intensive, so in that case a parallel flux, used to split execution across cores, could make a lot of sense. In reality though, those situations occur quite rarely in the normal reactor use cases.
(Also, just as a closing note, you almost always want to use Schedulers.parallel() with a parallel flux, not Schedulers.boundedElastic().)
Angular 4 application sends a list of records to a Java spring MVC application that has been deployed in Websphere 8 Servlet container. The list is then inserted into to a temp table. After the batch insert, a procedure call is made in order to do some calculations and return results. Depending on the size of the list that was inserted into temp table it may take anywhere between: 3000ms( N ~ 500 ), 6000ms( N ~ 1000 ), 50,000+ms ( N > 2000 ).
My asendach would be to create chunks of data and simultaneously send them to database for processing. After threads (Futures) return results I would aggregate them and return back to the client. To sum up, I would split a synchronous call into multiple asynchronous processes(simultaneously executed) and return back to the client over the same thread that initiated HTTP call - landed into my controller.
Everything would be fine and I would not be asking this questions if a more experienced colleague of mine was not strongly disagreeing with this approach. His reasoning is that using this approach is prone to exceptions due to thread interrupts / timeouts / semaphores and so on. Hi is going as far as saying that multithreading should be avoided within a web container because it can crash the Servlet container in case it runs out of threads.
He proposes that we should have the browser send multiple AJAX requests and aggregates/present data in chunks.
Can you please help me understand which approach is better and why?
I would say that your approach is much better.
Threads created by application logic aren't application container threads and limited only by operating system. While each AJAX request uses a thread from application container. So the second approach reduces throughput and increases the possibility of reaching application container limit while and the first one not. Performance also should be considered because it's much cheaper to create a thread than to send a request over network. Plus each network requests uses additional resources for authentication/authorization/encryption etc.
It's definetely harder to write correct multithread code and it can easily prone to errors. However it shouldn't stop you from doing it because concurrency can significantly increase your performance. It's pretty straightforward to handle interrupts and timeouts using Future and you for sure don't need semaphores here.
Exposing this logic to client looks like breaking of encapsulation. Imagine that you use rest api which forces you to send multiple request by splitting you data in chunks. What chunk size should i use? How to deal with timeouts/interrupts? How many requests should i sent? etc. You will have almost the same challenges in both approaches, but it's much easier to deal with them using specially designed for this libraries like ExecutorService and Future.
I use aws api gateway integrated with aws lambda(java), but I'm seeing some serious problems in this approach. The concept of removing the server and having your app scaled out of the box is really nice but here are the problem I'm facing. My lambda is doing 2 simple things- validate the payload received from the client and then send it to a kinesis stream for further processing from another lambda(you will ask why I don't send directly to the stream and only use 1 lambda for all of the operations. Let's just say that I want to separate the logic and have a layer of abstraction and also be able to tell the client that he's sending invalid data.).
In the implementation of the lambda I integrated the spring DI. So far so good. I started making performance testing. I simulated 50 concurrent users making 4 requests each with 5 seconds between the requests. So what happened- In the lambda's coldstart I initialize the spring's application context but it seems that having so many simultaneous requests when the lambda was not started is doing some strange things. Here's a screenshot of the times the context was initialized for.
What we can see from the screenshot is that the times for initializing the context have big difference. My assumption of what happening is that when so many requests are received and there's no "active" lambda it initializes a lambda container for every one of them and in the same time it "blocks" some of them(the ones with the big times of 18s) until the others already started are ready. So maybe it has some internal limit of the containers it can start at the same time. The problem is that if you don't have equally distributed traffic this will happen from time to time and some of the requests will timeout. We don't want this to happen.
So next thing was to do some tests without spring container as my thought was "ok, the initialization is heavy, let's just make plain old java objects initialization". And unfortunatelly the same thing happened(maybe just reduced the 3s container initialization for some of the requests). Here is a more detailed screenshot of the test data:
So I logged the whole lambda execution time(from construction to the end), the kinesis client initialization and the actual sending of the data to the stream as these are the heaviest operations in the lambda. We still have these big times of 18s or something but the interesting thing is that the times are somehow proportional. So if the whole lambda takes 18s, around 7-8s is the client initialization and 6-7 for sending the data to the stream and 4-5 seconds left for the other operations in the lambda which for the moment is only validation. On the other hand if we take one of the small times(which means that it reuses an already started lambda),i.e. 820ms, it takes 100ms for the kinesis client initialization and 340 for the data sending and 400ms for the validation. So this pushes me again to the thoughts that internally it makes some sleeps because of some limits. The next screenshot is showing what is happening on the next round of requests when the lamda is already started:
So we don't have this big times, yes we still have some relatively big delta in some of the request(which for me is also strange), but the things looks much better.
So I'm looking for a clarification from someone who knows actually what is happening under the hood, because this is not a good behavior for a serious application which is using the cloud because of it's "unlimited" possibilities.
And another question is related to another limit of the lambda-200 concurrent invocations in all lambdas within an account in a region. For me this is also a big limitation for a big application with lots of traffic. So as my business case in the moment(I don't know for the future) is more or less fire and forget the request. And I'm starting to think of changing the logic in the way that the gateway sends the data directly to the stream and the other lambda is taking care of the validation and the further processing. Yes, I'm loosing the current abstraction(which I don't need at the moment) but I'm increasing the application availability many times. What do you think?
The lambda execution time spikes to 18s because AWS launches new containers w/ your code to handle the incoming requests. The bootstrap time is ~18s.
Assigning more RAM can significantly improve the performance of your lambda function, because you have more RAM, CPU and networking throughput!
And another question is related to another limit of the lambda-200 concurrent invocations in all lambdas within an account in a region.
You can ask to the AWS Support to increase that limit. I asked to increase that limit to 10,000 invocation/second and the AWS Support did it quickly!
You can proxy straight to the Kinesis stream via API Gateway. You would lose some control in terms of validation and transformation, but you won't have the cold start latency that you're seeing from Lambda.
You can use the API Gateway mapping template to transform the data and if validation is important, you could potentially do that at the processing Lambda on the other side of the stream.
I am developing a Java application which will query tables which may hold over 1,000,000 records. I have tried everything I could to be as efficient as possible but I am only able to achieve on avg. about 5,000 records a minute and a maximum of 10,000 at one point. I have tried reverse engineering the data loader and my code seems to be very similar but still no luck.
Is threading a viable solution here? I have tried this but with very minimal results.
I have been reading and have applied every thing possible it seems (compressing requests/responses, threads etc.) but I cannot achieve data loader like speeds.
To note, it seems that the queryMore method seems to be the bottle neck.
Does anyone have any code samples or experiences they can share to steer me in the right direction?
Thanks
An approach I've used in the past is to query just for the IDs that you want (which makes the queries significantly faster). You can then parallelize the retrieves() across several threads.
That looks something like this:
[query thread] -> BlockingQueue -> [thread pool doing retrieve()] -> BlockingQueue
The first thread does query() and queryMore() as fast as it can, writing all ids it gets into the BlockingQueue. queryMore() isn't something you should call concurrently, as far as I know, so there's no way to parallelize this step. All ids are written into a BlockingQueue. You may wish to package them up into bundles of a few hundred to reduce lock contention if that becomes an issue. A thread pool can then do concurrent retrieve() calls on the ids to get all the fields for the SObjects and put them in a queue for the rest of your app to deal with.
I wrote a Java library for using the SF API that may be useful. http://blog.teamlazerbeez.com/2011/03/03/a-new-java-salesforce-api-library/
With the Salesforce API, the batch size limit is what can really slow you down. When you use the query/queryMore methods, the maximum batch size is 2000. However, even though you may specify 2000 as the batch size in your SOAP header, Salesforce may be sending smaller batches in response. Their batch size decision is based on server activity as well as the output of your original query.
I have noticed that if I submit a query that includes any "text" fields, the batch size is limited to 50.
My suggestion would be to make sure your queries are only pulling the data that you need. I know a lot of Salesforce tables end up with a lot of custom fields that may not be needed for every integration.
Salesforce documentation on this subject
We have about 14000 records in our Accounts object and it takes quite some time to get all the records. I perform a query which takes about a minute but SF only returns batches of no more than 500 even though I set batchsize to 2000. Each query more operation takes from 45 seconds to a minute also. This limitation is quite frustrating when you need to get bulk data.
Make use of Bulk-api to query any number of records from Java. I'm making use of it and performs very effectively even in seconds you get the result. The String returned is comma separated. Even you can maintain batches less than or equal to 10k to get the records either in CSV (using open csv) or directly in String.
Let me know if you require the code help.
Latency is going to be a killer for this type of situation - and the solution will be either multi-thread, or asynchronous operations (using NIO). I would start by running 10 worker threads in parallel and see what difference it makes (assuming that the back-end supports simultaneous gets).
I don't have any concrete code or anything I can provide here, sorry - just painful experience with API calls going over high latency networks.
I am building an application that reaches out to a FHIR API that implements paging, and only gives me a maximum of 100 results per page. However, our app requires the aggregation of these pages in order to hand over metadata to the UI about the entire result set.
When I loop through the pages of a large result set, I get HTTP status 429 - Too many requests. I am wondering if handing off these requests to a kafka service will help me get around this issue and maybe increase performance. I've read through the Intro and Use Cases sections of the Kafka documentation, but am still unclear as to whether implementing this tool will help.
You're getting 429 errors because you're making too many requests too quickly; you need to implement rate limiting.
As far as whether to use Kafka, a big part of that is whether your result set can fit in memory. If you can fit it in memory, then I would really suggest avoiding bringing in a separate service (KISS). If not, then yes, you can use Kafka. But I'd suggest taking a long think about whether you can use a relational datastore, because they're much more flexible. Or maybe even reading/writing directly to the disk
I were you, before I look into Kafka, I would try to solve why you are getting a 429 error. I would not leave that unnoticed. I would try to see how I am going to solve that.
I would looking into the following:
1) Sleep your process. The server response usually includes a Retry-after header in the response with the number of seconds you are supposed to wait before retrying.
2) Exponential backoff If the server's response does not tell you how long to wait, you can retry your request by inserting pauses by yourself in between.
Do keep it mind, before implementing sleep, it warrants extensive testing. You would have to make sure that your existing functionality does not get impacted.
To answer your question if Kafka would help you or not, the answer is it may or may not, with the limited info I can get from your question. Do understand that implementing Kafka would change your network architecture. You are bringing in a streaming platform to the equation. You would most probably implement caching which would aggregate your results. But at the moment all these concepts are at a very holistic level. I would suggest that you first ought to solve the 429 error and then warrant if a proper technical reason is present to implement Kafka which would improve your website's performance.