I would like to make a question to the comunity and get as many feedbacks as possible about an strategy I have been thinking, oriented to resolve some issues of performance in my project.
The context:
We have an important process that perform 4 steps.
An entity status change and its persistence
If 1 ends OK. Entity is exported into a CSV file.
If 2 ends OK. Entity is exported into another CSV. This one with way more Info.
If 3 ends OK. The last CSV is sent by mail
Steps 1 and 2 are linked and they are critical.
Steps 3 and 4 are not critical. Doesn't even care if they ends successfully.
Performance of 1-2 is fine, but 3-4 in some escenarios are just insanely slow. Mostly cause step 3.
If we execute all the steps as a sequence, some times step 3 causes a timeout. Client do not get any response about steps 1 and 2 (the important ones) and user don't know whats going on.
This case made me think in JMS queues in order to delegate the last 2 steps to another app/process. Deallocate the notification from the business logic. Second export and mailing will be processed when posible and probably in parallel. I could also split it in 2 queues: exports, mail notification.
Our webapp runs into a WebLogic 11 cluster, so I could use its implementation.
What do you think about the strategy? Is WebLogic JMS implementation anything good? Should I check another implementation? ActiveMQ, RabbitMQ,...
I have also thinking on tiketing system implementation with spring-tasks.
At this point I have to point at spring-batch. Its usage is limited. We have already so many jobs focused on important processes of data consolidation and the window of time for allocation of more jobs is limited. Plus the impact of to try to process all items massively at once.
May be we could if we find out a way to use the multithread of spring-batch but we didn't find yet the way to fit oír requirements into such strategy.
Thank you in advance and excuse my english. I promise to keep working hard on it :-).
One problem to consider is data integrity. If step n fails, does step n-1 need to be reversed? Is there any ordering dependencies that you need to be aware of? And are you writing to the same or different CSV? If the same, then might have contention issues.
Now, back to the original problem. I would consider Java executors, using 4 fixed-sized pools and move the task through the pools as successes occur:
Submit step 1 to pool 1, getting a Future back, which will be used to check for completion.
When step 1 completes, you submit step 2 to pool 2.
When step 2 completes, you now can return a result to the caller. The call to this point has been waiting (likely with a timeout so it doesn't hang around forever) but now the critical tasks are done.
After returning to the client, submit step 3 to pool 3.
When step 3 completes, submit step to pool 4.
The pools themselves, while fixed sized, could be larger for pool 1/2 to get maximum throughput (and to get back to your client as quickly as possible) and pool 3/4 could be smaller but still large enough to get the work done.
You could do something similar with JMS, but the issues are similar: you need to have multiple listeners or multiple threads per listener so that you can process at an appropriate speed. You could do steps 1/2 synchronously without a pool, but then you don't get some of the thread management that executors give you. You still need to "schedule" steps 3/4 by putting them on the JMS queue and still have listeners to process them.
The ability to recover from server going down is key here, but Executors/ExecutorService has not persistence, so then I'd definitely be looking at JMS (and then I'd be queuing absolutely everything up, even the first 2 steps) but depending on your use case it might be overkill.
Yes, an event-driven approach where a message bus makes the integration sounds good. They are asynch so you will not have timeout. Of course you will need to use a Topic. WLS has some memory issues when you have too many messages in the server, maybe a different server would work better for separation of concerns and resources.
Related
I have a List which contains a lot of objects.
The problem is that i have to process these objects (process includes cloning, deep copy, and making DB calls, running business logic etc etc.
Doing this in a normal fashion, first come first serve is really time consuming and in a web application , this generally results in transaction timeouts at the server side (as this processing is anync from client perspective).
How do i process those objects so as to take minimal time and not overload the DB.
I'm using java 7 on server environment.
I'm already using a messaging solution , rabbitmq, which gets me the item and its quantity. problem occurs when i try to deep copy items to mimic real items (business logic every item should be uniquely processed) and save them to DB.
After some discussions, the viable solution is using a ABQ (array blocking queues) which is processed by a pool of threads.
Following are the thought out benefits:
1) we wont have to manage the 3rd party queues created e.g. rabbitmq
2) At any point in time the blocking queue wont have all the items to be processed as the consumer threads will be simultaneously processing them, so it will leave lesser memory footprint.
#cody123 i'm using spring batch for retry mechanisms in this case.
After another round of profiling i found that the bottle neck was the DB connection pool having low number of max connections.
I deduced this by running the same transaction without db thread pool and it went perfectly well and completed without any exception.
However combining the previous approach i.e. managing an ABQ and light commits with HA DB will be the best solution.
Consider an implementation of A* algorithm.- for example:
A* implementation
Assume the input graph was very huge and solving this code was long enough that I thought of failure recovery in event this code crashed in between. Failures could be any - software / hardware etc.
I am not looking for code, but just a few pointers into what are common solutions to such a problem of recovery
There are several options:
You can rewrite your algorithm to support error recovery.
For example you can split it onto tasks and submit these tasks into queue.
So main part of algorithm just gets tasks from queue and executes them.
During execution, tasks may submit additional tasks.
So, to recovery, you just need to repeat failed task execution.
Perform bytecode manipulation.
Take a look to Javaflow approach.
You can suspend your code execution at a certain point
and then you can resume it.
If something goes wrong, you just try to repeat resuming from last point.
Note that in some cases there are troubles with algorithm implementation,
so restoring is just impossible.
But when something wrong with external components
(for example, you store something in the database)
repeating may help.
For example, database may be down or there is writing conflict with another transaction.
When you have a potential failure of a large dataset, the normal thing to use is a redundant database. If you graph data, you might like to use neo4j which now has a pretty interface but also supports redundancy and can be used embedded to minimise latency.
If you just need high throughput persisted replication, Java Chronicle supports 5-20 million messages per second over TCP replication (up to the limit of your network bandwidth)
If none of the 150+ no sql database suit you needs you would still need to implement something like them http://nosql-database.org/
Our company has a Batch Application which runs every day, It does some database related jobs mostly, import data into database table from file for example.
There are 20+ tasks defined in that application, each one may depends on other ones or not.
The application execute tasks one by one, the whole application runs in a single thread.
It takes 3~7 hours to finish all the tasks. I think it's too long, so I think maybe I can improve performance by multi-threading.
I think as there is dependency between tasks, it not good (or it's not easy) to make tasks run in parallel, but maybe I can use multi-threading to improve performance inside a task.
for example : we have a task defined as "ImportBizData", which copy data into a database table from a data file(usually contains 100,0000+ rows). I wonder is that worth to use multi-threading?
As I know a little about multi-threading, I hope some one provide some tutorial links on this topic.
Multi-threading will improve your performance but there are a couple of things you need to know:
Each thread needs its own JDBC connection. Connections can't be shared between threads because each connection is also a transaction.
Upload the data in chunks and commit once in a while to avoid accumulating huge rollback/undo tables.
Cut tasks into several work units where each unit does one job.
To elaborate the last point: Currently, you have a task that reads a file, parses it, opens a JDBC connection, does some calculations, sends the data to the database, etc.
What you should do:
One (!) thread to read the file and create "jobs" out of it. Each job should contains a small, but not too small "unit of work". Push those into a queue
The next thread(s) wait(s) for jobs in the queue and do the calculations. This can happen while the threads in step #1 wait for the slow hard disk to return the new lines of data. The result of this conversion step goes into the next queue
One or more threads to upload the data via JDBC.
The first and the last threads are pretty slow because they are I/O bound (hard disks are slow and network connections are even worse). Plus inserting data in a database is a very complex task (allocating space, updating indexes, checking foreign keys)
Using different worker threads gives you lots of advantages:
It's easy to test each thread separately. Since they don't share data, you need no synchronization. The queues will do that for you
You can quickly change the number of threads for each step to tweak performance
Multi threading may be of help, if the lines are uncorrelated, you may start off two processes one reading even lines, another uneven lines, and get your db connection from a connection pool (dbcp) and analyze performance. But first I would investigate whether jdbc is the best approach normally databases have optimized solutions for imports like this. These solutions may also temporarily switch of constraint checking of your table, and turn that back on later, which is also great for performance. As always depending on your requirements.
Also you may want to checkout springbatch which is designed for batch processing.
As far as I know,the JDBC Bridge uses synchronized methods to serialize all calls to ODBC so using mutliple threads won't give you any performance boost unless it boosts your application itself.
I am not all that familiar with JDBC but regarding the multithreading bit of your question, what you should keep in mind is that parallel processing relies on effectively dividing your problem into bits that are independent of one another and in some way putting them back together (their output that is). If you dont know the underlying dependencies between tasks you might end up having really odd errors/exceptions in your code. Even worse, it might all execute without any problems, but the results might be off from true values. Multi-threading is tricky business, in a way fun to learn (at least I think so) but pain in the neck when things go south.
Here are a couple of links that might provide useful:
Oracle's java trail: best place to start
A good tutorial for java concurrency
an interesting article on concurrency
If you are serious about putting effort to getting into multi-threading I can recommend GOETZ, BRIAN: JAVA CONCURRENCY, amazing book really..
Good luck
I had a similar task. But in my case, all the tables were unrelated to each other.
STEP1:
Using SQL Loader(Oracle) for uploading data into database(very fast) OR any similar bulk update tools for your database.
STEP2:
Running each uploading process in a different thread(for unrelated tasks) and in a single thread for related tasks.
P.S. You could identify different inter-related jobs in your application and categorize them in groups; and running each group in different threads.
Links to run you up:
JAVA Threading
follow the last example in the above link(Example: Partitioning a large task with multiple threads)
SQL Loader can dramatically improve performance
The fastest way I've found to insert large numbers of records into Oracle is with array operations. See the "setExecuteBatch" method, which is specific to OraclePreparedStatement. It's described in one of the examples here:
http://betteratoracle.com/posts/25-array-batch-inserts-with-jdbc
If Multi threading would complicate your work, you could go with Async messaging. I'm not fully aware of what your needs are, so, the following is from what I am seeing currently.
Create a file reader java whose purpose is to read the biz file and put messages into the JMS queue on the server. This could be plain Java with static void main()
Consume the JMS messages in the Message driven beans(You can set the limit on the number of beans to be created in the pool, 50 or 100 depending on the need) if you have mutliple servers, well and good, your job is now split into multiple servers.
Each row of data is asynchronously split between 2 servers and 50 beans on each server.
You do not have to deal with threads in the whole process, JMS is ideal because your data is within a transaction, if something fails before you send an ack to the server, the message will be resent to the consumer, the load will be split between the servers without you doing anything special like multi threading.
Also, spring is providing spring-batch which can help you. http://docs.spring.io/spring-batch/reference/html/spring-batch-intro.html#springBatchUsageScenarios
This question is about the fallouts of using SingleThreadExecutor (JDK 1.6). Related questions have been asked and answered in this forum before, but I believe the situation I am facing, is a bit different.
Various components of the application (let's call the components C1, C2, C3 etc.) generate (outbound) messages, mostly in response to messages (inbound) that they receive from other components. These outbound messages are kept in queues which are usually ArrayBlockingQueue instances - fairly standard practice perhaps. However, the outbound messages must be processed in the order they are added. I guess use of a SingleThreadExector is the obvious answer here. We end up having a 1:1 situation - one SingleThreadExecutor for one queue (which is dedicated to messages emanating from one component).
Now, the number of components (C1,C2,C3...) is unknown at a given moment. They will come into existence depending on the need of the users (and will be eventually disposed of too). We are talking about 200-300 such components at the peak load. Following the 1:1 design principle stated above, we are going to arrange for 200 SingleThreadExecutors. This is the source of my query here.
I am uncomfortable with the thought of having to create so many SingleThreadExecutors. I would rather try and use a pool of SingleThreadExecutors, if that makes sense and is plausible (any ready-made, seen-before classes/patterns?). I have read many posts on recommended use of SingleThreadExecutor here, but what about a pool of the same?
What do learned women and men here think? I would like to be directed, corrected or simply, admonished :-).
If your requirement is that the messages be processed in the order that they're posted, then you want one and only one SingleThreadExecutor. If you have multiple executors, then messages will be processed out-of-order across the set of executors.
If messages need only be processed in the order that they're received for a single producer, then it makes sense to have one executor per producer. If you try pooling executors, then you're going to have to put a lot of work into ensuring affinity between producer and executor.
Since you indicate that your producers will have defined lifetimes, one thing that you have to ensure is that you properly shut down your executors when they're done.
Messaging and batch jobs is something that has been solved time and time again. I suggest not attempting to solve it again. Instead, look into Quartz, which maintains thread pools, persisting tasks in a database etc. Or, maybe even better look into JMS/ActiveMQ. But, at the very least look into Quartz, if you have not already. Oh, and Spring makes working with Quartz so much easier...
I don't see any problem there. Essentially you have independent queues and each has to be drained sequentially, one thread for each is a natural design. Anything else you can come up with are essentially the same. As an example, when Java NIO first came out, frameworks were written trying to take advantage of it and get away from the thread-per-request model. In the end some authors admitted that to provide a good programming model they are just reimplementing threading all over again.
It's impossible to say whether 300 or even 3000 threads will cause any issues without knowing more about your application. I strongly recommend that you should profile your application before adding more complexity
The first thing that you should check is that number of concurrently running threads should not be much higher than number of cores available to run those threads. The more active threads you have, the more time is wasted managing those threads (context switch is expensive) and the less work gets done.
The easiest way to limit number of running threads is to use semaphore. Acquire semaphore before starting work and release it after the work is done.
Unfortunately limiting number of running threads may not be enough. While it may help, overhead may still be to great, if time spent per context switch is major part of total cost of one unit of work. In this scenario, often the most efficient way is to have fixed number of queues. You get queue from global pool of queues when component initializes using algorithm such as round-robin for queue selection.
If you are in one of those unfortunate cases where most obvious solutions do not work, I would start with something relatively simple: one thread pool, one concurrent queue, lock, list of queues and temporary queue for each thread in pool.
Posting work to queue is simple: add payload and identity of producer.
Processing is relatively straightforward as well. First you get get next item from queue. Then you acquire the lock. While you have lock in place, you check if any of other threads is running task for same producer. If not, you register thread by adding a temporary queue to list of queues. Otherwise you add task to existing temporary queue. Finally you release the lock. Now you either run the task or poll for next and start over depending on whether current thread was registered to run tasks. After running the task, you get lock again and see, if there is more work to be done in temporary queue. If not, remove queue from list. Otherwise get next task. Finally you release the lock. Again, you choose whether to run the task or to start over.
I have a problem which I believe is the classic master/worker pattern, and I'm seeking advice on implementation. Here's what I currently am thinking about the problem:
There's a global "queue" of some sort, and it is a central place where "the work to be done" is kept. Presumably this queue will be managed by a kind of "master" object. Threads will be spawned to go find work to do, and when they find work to do, they'll tell the master thing (whatever that is) to "add this to the queue of work to be done".
The master, perhaps on an interval, will spawn other threads that actually perform the work to be done. Once a thread completes its work, I'd like it to notify the master that the work is finished. Then, the master can remove this work from the queue.
I've done a fair amount of thread programming in Java in the past, but it's all been prior to JDK 1.5 and consequently I am not familiar with the appropriate new APIs for handling this case. I understand that JDK7 will have fork-join, and that that might be a solution for me, but I am not able to use an early-access product in this project.
The problems, as I see them, are:
1) how to have the "threads doing the work" communicate back to the master telling them that their work is complete and that the master can now remove the work from the queue
2) how to efficiently have the master guarantee that work is only ever scheduled once. For example, let's say this queue has a million items, and it wants to tell a worker to "go do these 100 things". What's the most efficient way of guaranteeing that when it schedules work to the next worker, it gets "the next 100 things" and not "the 100 things I've already scheduled"?
3) choosing an appropriate data structure for the queue. My thinking here is that the "threads finding work to do" could potentially find the same work to do more than once, and they'd send a message to the master saying "here's work", and the master would realize that the work has already been scheduled and consequently should ignore the message. I want to ensure that I choose the right data structure such that this computation is as cheap as possible.
Traditionally, I would have done this in a database, in sort of a finite-state-machine manner, working "tasks" through from start to complete. However, in this problem, I don't want to use a database because of the high volume and volatility of the queue. In addition, I'd like to keep this as light-weight as possible. I don't want to use any app server if that can be avoided.
It is quite likely that this problem I'm describing is a common problem with a well-known name and accepted set of solutions, but I, with my lowly non-CS degree, do not know what this is called (i.e. please be gentle).
Thanks for any and all pointers.
As far as I understand your requirements, you need ExecutorService. ExecutorService have
submit(Callable task)
method which return value is Future. Future is a blocking way to communicate back from worker to master. You could easily expand this mechanism to work is asynchronous manner. And yes, ExecutorService also maintaining work queue like ThreadPoolExecutor. So you don't need to bother about scheduling, in most cases. java.util.concurrent package already have efficient implementations of thread safe queue (ConcurrentLinked queue - nonblocking, and LinkedBlockedQueue - blocking).
Check out java.util.concurrent in the Java library.
Depending on your application it might be as simple as cobbling together some blocking queue and a ThreadPoolExecutor.
Also, the book Java Concurrency in Practice by Brian Goetz might be helpful.
First, why do you want to hold the items after a worker started doing them? Normally, you would have a queue of work and a worker takes items out of this queue. This would also solve the "how can I prevent workers from getting the same item"-problem.
To your questions:
1) how to have the "threads doing the
work" communicate back to the master
telling them that their work is
complete and that the master can now
remove the work from the queue
The master could listen to the workers using the listener/observer pattern
2) how to efficiently have the master
guarantee that work is only ever
scheduled once. For example, let's say
this queue has a million items, and it
wants to tell a worker to "go do these
100 things". What's the most efficient
way of guaranteeing that when it
schedules work to the next worker, it
gets "the next 100 things" and not
"the 100 things I've already
scheduled"?
See above. I would let the workers pull the items out of the queue.
3) choosing an appropriate data
structure for the queue. My thinking
here is that the "threads finding work
to do" could potentially find the same
work to do more than once, and they'd
send a message to the master saying
"here's work", and the master would
realize that the work has already been
scheduled and consequently should
ignore the message. I want to ensure
that I choose the right data structure
such that this computation is as cheap
as possible.
There are Implementations of a blocking queue since Java 5
Don't forget Jini and Javaspaces. What you're describing sounds very like the classic producer/consumer pattern that space-based architectures excel at.
A producer will write the jobs into the space. 1 or more consumers will take out jobs (under a transaction) and work on that in parallel, and then write the results back. Since it's under a transaction, if a problem occurs the job is made available again for another consumer .
You can scale this trivially by adding more consumers. This works especially well when the consumers are separate VMs and you scale across the network.
If you are open to the idea of Spring, then check out their Spring Integration project. It gives you all the queue/thread-pool boilerplate out of the box and leaves you to focus on the business logic. Configuration is kept to a minimum using #annotations.
btw, the Goetz is very good.
This doesn't sound like a master-worker problem, but a specialized client above a threadpool. Given that you have a lot of scavenging threads and not a lot of processing units, it may be worthwhile simply doing a scavaging pass and then a computing pass. By storing the work items in a Set, the uniqueness constraint will remove duplicates. The second pass can submit all of the work to an ExecutorService to perform the process in parallel.
A master-worker model generally assumes that the data provider has all of the work and supplies it to the master to manage. The master controls the work execution and deals with distributed computation, time-outs, failures, retries, etc. A fork-join abstraction is a recursive rather than iterative data provider. A map-reduce abstraction is a multi-step master-worker that is useful in certain scenarios.
A good example of master-worker is for trivially parallel problems, such as finding prime numbers. Another is a data load where each entry is independant (validate, transform, stage). The need to process a known working set, handle failures, etc. is what makes a master-worker model different than a thread-pool. This is why a master must be in control and pushes the work units out, whereas a threadpool allows workers to pull work from a shared queue.