We Keep Coding

Prevent from slow job taking over a thread pool

I have a system where currently every job has it's own Runnable class and I pre defined a fixed number of threads for every job.
My understanding is that it is a wrong practice, because:
You have to tailor the number of threads with respect to the machine running the process.
Each threads can only take one type of job.
Would you agree on that? (current solution is wrong)
So, I'd like to use something like Java's ThreadPool instead. I was conflicted with an argument claiming that by doing so, slow jobs will take over most of the thread pool, leaving no place to the other jobs. Whereas, with the current solution, a fixed number of threads were assigned to the slow worker and it won't hurt the others.
(Notice that you can't know a-priori if a job will be "slow")
How can a system be both adaptive in the number of threads it uses, but at the same time not be bounded to the most slow job?

You could try getting the time it takes for the job to complete (With a hand-made Timer class of sorts. Then you normalize this value by dividing this time by the maximum time any given thread has taken. Finally, you multiply this number by a fixed number which varies depending on how many threads you want running per job per second. This will be the requested amount of threads this process should be using. You can adjust that according.
Edit: You can set minimum and maximum values that regulate how many threads a job is entitled to. You could alternatively request threads from a very spacious job when another thread enters the system.
Hope that helps!

It's more of a business problem. Let's say I am a telecom operator. I bar my subscribers from making outgoing calls when they don't clear their dues. When they make payment I clear a flag and in a second the subscriber can make calls. But a lot of other activities go on in my system like usage processing, billing, bill formatting etc.
Now let's assume I have a system wide common pool of threads and I started the billing of 50K subscribers. All my threads are now processing the relatively long running billing jobs and a huge queue is building up.
A poor customer now makes a payment and wants to make an urgent call. But I have no thread left in my pool to clear the flag. The customer had to wait for an hour before he can make the call. That's SLA breach.
What I should have done is create separate thread pools. If the call unblocking jobs are not very frequent and short, I can create a separate pool for it with core size 5 maybe. For billing jobs I'd rather create a pool with core size 25 and max-size 30.
So, my system limits won't anyway exceed because I know in even the worst situation I won't have more than 30 threads.
This will also make it easy to debug. If I have a different thread name pattern for each pool amd my system has some issues. I can easily take a thread dump and understand if the billing or the payment stuff is the culprit.
So, I think the existing design is based on some business use case which you need to thoroughly understand before proposing a solution.

java, quartz and multiple tasks triggered at certain times saved in a database

I'm building a system where users can set a future date(down to hours and minutes) in calendar. At that date a trigger is calling a certain task, unique for every user.
Every user can set a different date. The system will have 10k+ from the start and a user can create more than one trigger.
So assuming I have 10k users each user create on average 3 triggers => 30k triggers with 30k different dates.
All dates are saved in a database.
I'm new to quartz, can this be done in a more optimized way?
I was thinking about making a task run every minute that will get the tasks that will suppose to run in the next hour and remove them from database.
Do you have any better ideas? Did someone used quartz for a large number of triggers.

You have the schedule backed in the database. If I understand the idea - you want the quartz to load all the upcoming tasks to execute them in the future.
This is problematic approach:
Synchronization Issues: I assume that users can edit, remove and add new tasks to the database. You would have to periodically ask the database to refresh the state of the quartz jobs, remove some jobs, edit other jobs etc. This may not be trivial. The state of the program would be a long living cache which needs to be synchronised often.
Performance and scalability issues: Even if proposed solution may be ok for 30K tasks it may not be ok for 70k or 700k tasks. In your approach it's not easy to scale - adding new machine would require additional layer of synchronisation - which machine should actually execute which job (as all of them have all the tasks).
What I would propose:
Add the "stage" to the Tasks table (new, queued, running, finished, failed)
divide your solution into several components. (Initially they can run on a single machine but it will be easy to scale)
Components:
Task Finder: Executed periodically (once every few seconds). Scans the database for tasks that are "new", and due soon. Sends the tasks found to Message Queue and marks the task as "queued" in the db. Marking as "queued" has to be done carefully as there can be multiple "task finders". (As an addition it may find the tasks that have been marked as "queued" or "running" more than N minutes ago and are not "finished" nor "canceled" - probably need to re-run these)
Message Queue: Connector between Taks Finder and Task Executor.
Task Executor: Listens to the Message Queue and process the tasks that it received. Marks the tasks as "running" initially and "finished" or "failed" later on.
With this approach you can have:
multiple Task Executors on multiple machines
multiple Task Schedulers on multiple machines
even if one of the Task Schedulers or Executors will fail it will not be Single Point of Failure. Some of the tasks will be delayed but it will be picked up and run afterwards.
This may not address all the scenarios but would be a good starting point.

I don't see why you need quartz here at all. As far as I remember, quartz is best used to schedule backend internal processes, not user-defined tasks obtained from db.
Just process the trigger as it is created, save a row to your tasks table with start_date based on the trigger and every second select all incomplete tasks with start_date< sysdate. If the job is repeating, calculate next execution time and insert new task row / update previous accordingly.

As Sam pointed out there are some nice topics addressing the same problem:
Quartz Performance
Quartz FAQ
In a system like the mentioned it should not a problem mostly to handle this amount of triggers. But according to my experiance it is a better way to create something like a "JobChecker". If you enable your users to create own triggers it could really break Quartz in some cases. For example if 5000 user creates an event to the exact same time, Quartz will have a hard time to handle them correctly. (It is not likely a situation that will occur often, but it is possible as your specification does not excludes it.) Quartz has difficulties only when a lot of triggers should be fired at the same time.
My recommendation to this problem is to create one job that is running in every hour/minute etc and that should handle every user set events. This way is simmilar to a cron job in bash. With this kind of processing your system will be pretty stable even if the number of "triggers" increases dramatically. Basically your line of thought is correct if you thrive for scalability.

Java ExecutorService - sometimes slower than sequential processing?

I'm writing a simple utility which accepts a collection of Callable tasks, and runs them in parallel. The hope is that the total time taken is little over the time taken by the longest task. The utility also adds some error handling logic - if any task fails, and the failure is something that can be treated as "retry-able" (e.g. a timeout, or a user-specified exception), then we run the task directly.
I've implemented this utility around an ExecutorService. There are two parts:
submit() all the Callable tasks to the ExecutorService, storing the Future objects.
in a for-loop, get() the result of each Future. In case of exceptions, do the "retry-able" logic.
I wrote some unit tests to ensure that using this utility is faster than running the tasks in sequence. For each test, I'd generate a certain number of Callable's, each essentially performing a Thread.sleep() for a random amount of time within a bound. I experimented with different timeouts, different number of tasks, etc. and the utility seemed to outperform sequential execution.
But when I added it to the actual system which needs this kind of utility, I saw results that were very variable - sometimes the parallel execution was faster, sometimes it was slower, and sometimes it was faster, but still took a lot more time than the longest individual task.
Am I just doing it all wrong? I know ExecutorService has invokeAll() but that swallows the underlying exceptions. I also tried using a CompletionService to fetch task results in the order in which they completed, but it exhibited more or less the same behavior. I'm reading up now on latches and barriers - is this the right direction for solving this problem?

I wrote some unit tests to ensure that using this utility is faster than running the tasks in sequence. For each test, I'd generate a certain number of Callable's, each essentially performing a Thread.sleep() for a random amount of time within a bound
Yeah this is certainly not a fair test since it is using neither CPU nor IO. I certainly hope that parallel sleeps would run faster than serial. :-)
But when I added it to the actual system which needs this kind of utility, I saw results that were very variable
Right. Whether or not a threaded application runs faster than a serial one depends a lot on a number of factors. In particular, IO bound applications will not improve in performance since they are bound by the IO channel and really cannot do concurrent operations because of this. The more processing that is needed by the application, the larger the win is to convert it to be multi-threaded.
Am I just doing it all wrong?
Hard to know without more details. You might consider playing around with the number of threads that are running concurrently. If you have a ton of jobs to process you should not be using a Executos.newCachedThreadPool() and should optimized the newFixedSizeThreadPool(...) depending on the number of CPUs your architecture has.
You also may want to see if you can isolate the IO operations in a few threads and the processing to other threads. Like one input thread reading from a file and one output thread (or a couple) writing to the database or something. So multiple sized pools may do better for different types of tasks instead of using a single thread-pool.
tried using a CompletionService to fetch task results in the order in which they completed
If you are retrying operations, using a CompletionService is exactly the way to go. As jobs finish and throw exceptions (or return failure), they can be restarted and put back into the thread-pool immediately. I don't see any reason why your performance problems would be because of this.

Multi-threaded programming doesn't come for free. It has an overhead. The over head can easily exceed and performance gain and usually makes your code more complex.
Additional threads give access to more cpu power (assuming you have spare cpus) but in general they won't make you HDD spin faster , give you more network bandwidth or speed up something which is not cpu bound.
Multiple threads can help give you a greater share of an external resource.

Appengine Backend Task Dispatcher: A More Economical Version

I'm working on a job dispatcher for appengine, and the default scheduler always winds up firing up 3-4 instances that do all the work, some overflow instances that might take thousands of tasks, or only a couple and then sits there burning cpus doing nothing.
My task involves processing jobs for many different sized domains, sometimes there's huge throughput, and other times it's one user with 10,000 models to update; if I turn the normal appengine task scheduler loose, it fails in two ways: 1) backends never shut down, and when memory hits the cap, java gc makes an instance thrash and act like it's almost a zombie yet never shut down {and still take/hold jobs}, and 2) many domains have a single user that takes far longer than all the others to process, and this keeps a backend alive long after the rest of the domain has finished.
These tasks must run throughout the day, and it takes multiple backends to handle fanout, so I can't just dump them all on a B8 and call it a day., so we need a dispatcher to manage how tasks get allocated to backends.
Now, I don't want to pay datastore ops on every task just to save a few minutes of cpu time, so my plan of attack {please critique} is to use a static ConcurrentHashMap in RAM, start each run() in a try, have every deferred task put it's [hashcode, startTime] in at startup and remove(hashcode) in a finally. There will be one such map per backend instance that's running jobs, wrapped in a method, BackendCounter.addToLiveMap(this); it's .size() serves as a running total of how many jobs are alive on that backend {with timestamp to detect zombie jobs that run >10 minutes}. The job dispatcher can fire off a worker thread per instance to monitor how many jobs, excluding itself, are running in that instance, and keep a ranked list in memcache of which instances have how many tasks alive. If one instance drops below a threshold of X live tasks, pick an overflow instance to defer to, then have the method BackendCounter.addToLiveMap(this) throw an exception I can catch to tell jobs to just schedule themselves to a new instance {ChangeInstanceException#getNewTarget()}. This way I can prevent barely-used instances from getting new jobs so they have a chance to shut down, paying only for some memcache ops and fanout only pays a write and delete to static map.
That takes care of problem two, which is the instance-hour killer. As for problem one, which is how to prevent one instance {usually instance 0 and 1} from hitting peak memory and start turning toward the dark side, I am torn between two options.
On the one hand, I can use the expected call to BackendCounter.addToLiveMap(this) throws ChangeInstanceException and simply check memory:
if (((float)Runtime.getRuntime().freeMemory() / Runtime.getRuntime().totalMemory())<0.9) throw new ChangeInstanceException(getOverflowInstance());
This naive approach will simply tell any instance approaching it's memory limit to send all new work elsewhere.
On the other hand, I could keep instance 0 and 1 for handling overflow {and toggle between which of the two gets new jobs to give them chances to shut down}, then send the fanout to instances 2+, which will only run until they drop to say, 10 or 15 jobs in parallel. The fanout is pretty consistent, and only takes a couple minutes, so instances 2, 3 and, at most, 4, will need to turn on, and be given time to turn off while a different instance gets hit with more load.
The only thing I'm afraid of is if jobs starting bouncing from one instance to another, which can probably be overcome with a redirect header limit to skip throwing ChangeInstanceException.
Any thoughts or advice are greatly appreciated.

EJB timer performance

I am trying to decide if use a java-ee timer in my application or not. The server I am using is Weblogic 10.3.2
The need is: After one hour of a call to an async webservice from an EJB, if the async callback method has not been called it is needed to execute some actions. The information regarding if the callback method has been called and the date of the execution of the call is stored in database.
The two possibilities I see are:
Using a batch process that every half hour looks for all the calls that have been more than one hour without response and execute the needed actions.
Create a timer of one hour after every single call to the ws and in the #Timeout method check if the answer has come and if it has not, execute the required actions.
From a pure programming point of view, it looks easier and cleaner the second one, but I am worry of the performance issues I could have if let's say there are 100.000 Timer created at a single moment.
Any thoughts?

You would be better off having a more specialized process. The real problem is the 100,000 issue. It would depend on how long your actions take.
Because its easy to see that each second, the EJB timer would fire up 30 threads to process all of the current pending jobs, since that's how it works.
Also timers are persistent, so your EJB managed timer table will be saving and deleting 30 rows per second (60 total), this is assuming 100K transactions/hour.
So, that's an lot of work happening very quickly. I can easily see the system simply "falling behind" and never catching up.
A specialized process would be much lighter weight, could perhaps batch the action calls (call 5 actions per thread instead of one per thread), etc. It would be nice if you didn't have to persist the timer events, but that is what it is. You could almost easily simply append the timer events to a file for safety, and keep them in memory. On system restart, you can reload that file, and then roll the file (every hour create a new file, delete the older file after it's all been consumed, etc.). That would save a lot of DB traffic, but you could lose the transactional nature of the DB.
Anyway, I don't think you want to use the EJB Timer for this, I don't think it's really designed for this amount of traffic. But you can always test it and see. Make sure you test restarting your container see how well it works with 100K pending timer jobs in its table.

All depends of what is used by the container. e.g. JBoss uses Quartz Scheduler to implement EJB timer functionality. Quartz is pretty good when you have around 100 000 timer instances.

#Pau: why u need to create a timer for every call made...instead u can have a single timer thread created at start up of application which runs after every half-hour(configurable) period of time and looks in your Database for all web services calls whose response have not been received and whose requested time is past 1 hour. And for selected records, in for loop, it can execute required action.
Well above design may not be useful if you have time critical activity to be performed.
If you have spring framework in your application, you may also look up its timer services.http://static.springsource.org/spring/docs/1.2.9/reference/scheduling.html

Maybe you could use some of these ideas:
Where I'm at, we've built a cron-like scheduler which is powered by a single timer. When the timer fires the system checks which crons need to run using a Quartz CronTrigger. Generally these crons have a lot of work to do, and the way we handle that is each cron spins its individual tasks off as JMS messages, then MDBs handle the messages. Currently this runs on a single Glassfish instance and as our task load increases, we should be able to scale this up with a cluster so multiple nodes are processing the jms messages. We balance the jms message processing load for each type of task by setting the max-pool-size in glassfish-ejb-jar.xml (also known as sun-ejb-jar.xml).
Building a system like this and getting all the details right isn't trivial, but it's proving really effective.