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.
Related
I have a bunch of independent pieces of work that I need processes to perform. These pieces of work can be performed in any order, and they last long enough that processes sometimes fail when work is being performed.
I need to coordinate the assignment of these pieces of work, and Curator's DistributedQueue seems like it is almost what I want. I don't need the ordering it provides, though, so I am curious what level of overhead I am paying for that assuming I decline to have a single consumer (ie each process just consumes from the queue).
My main concern is how the lockPath() function on the queue builder actually works. I need the functionality it provides, because it is possible for processes to fail and I need to not be dropping the jobs they were supposed to be doing. But what I don't want is for only one process to be able to do any work at a time. If I use lockPath(), will the queue block for other processes while a process is consuming a message?
Also, if the queue seems like an unreasonable approach, is there another tool available to achieve what I want, or would I have to roll my own? I want to stay within the Curator / ZK environment but am open to alternatives within that.
(Note: I'm the main author of Apache Curator)
The documentation needs to be improved. The lock is used to make the queue entry retry-able. i.e. the entry in the queue is not removed until the consumer finishes. The lock assures that only 1 process is acting on the entry. If you don't care about dropping queue entries on failure you don't need to use the lock. With or without the lock, though, each consumer that you run processes queue entries. So, if you want to have concurrent processing of the queue you'd run multiple consumers (in the same JVM or in separate JVMs - it doesn't matter).
Here's a workflow engine I wrote that uses the Curator queue to do distributed work. Feel free to use it as it is open source: http://nirmataoss.github.io/workflow/
Hi I am a newbie in Concurrent programming with java. of all the examples I saw in concurrent programming whenever we use to define a task queue people used different implementations of blockingqueue.
why only blockingqueue? what are the advantages and disadvantages?
why not any other data structures?
Ok, i can't address exactly why unspecified code you looked at uses certain data structures and not other ones. But Blocking queues have nice properties. Holding only a fixed number of elements and forcing producers who would insert items over that limit to wait is actually a feature.
Limiting the queue size helps keep the application safe from a badly-behaved producer, which otherwise could fill the queue with entries until the application ran out of memory. Obviously it's faster to insert a task into the task wueue thsn it is to execute it, an executor is going to be at risk for getting bombarded with work.
Also making the producer wait applies back pressure to the system. That way the queue lets the producer know it's falling behind and not accepting more work. It's better for the producer to wait than it is for it to keep hammering the queue; back pressure lets the system degrade gracefully.
So you have a data structure that is easy to understand, has practical benefits for building applications and seems like a natural fit for a task queue. Of course people are going to use it.
I have multiple threads each one with its own private concurrent queue and all they do is run an infinite loop retrieving messages from it. It could happen that one of the queues doesn't receive messages for a period of time (maybe a couple seconds), and also they could come in big bursts and fast processing is necessary.
I would like to know what would be the most appropriate to do in the first case: use a blocking queue and block the thread until I have more input or do a Thread.yield()?
I want to have as much CPU resources available as possible at a given time, as the number of concurrent threads may increase with time, but also I don't want the message processing to fall behind, as there is no guarantee of when the thread will be reescheduled for execution when doing a yield(). I know that hardware, operating system and other factors play an important role here, but setting that aside and looking at it from a Java (JVM?) point of view, what would be the most optimal?
Always just block on the queues. Java yields in the queues internally.
In other words: You cannot get any performance benefit in the other threads if you yield in one of them rather than just block.
You certainly want to use a blocking queue - they are designed for exactly this purpose (you want your threads to not use CPU time when there is no work to do).
Thread.yield() is an extremely temperamental beast - the scheduler plays a large role in exactly what it does; and one simple but valid implementation is to simply do nothing.
Alternatively, consider converting your implementation to use one of the managed ExecutorService implementations - probably ThreadPoolExecutor.
This may not be appropriate for your use case, but if it is, it removes the whole burden of worrying about thread management from your own code - and these questions about yielding or not simply vanish.
In addition, if better thread management algorithms emerge in future - for example, something akin to Apple's Grand Central Dispatch - you may be able to convert your application to use it with almost no effort.
Another thing that you could do is use the concurrent hash map for your queue. When you do a read it gives you a reference of the object you were looking for, so it is possible you my miss a message that was just put into the queue. But if all this is doing is listening for a message you will catch it the next iteration. It would be different if the messages could be updated by other threads. But there doesn't really seem to be a reason to block that I can see.
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.
I am working on a project that uses a queue that keeps information about the messages that need to be sent to remote hosts. In that case one thread is responsible for putting information into the queue and another thread is responsible for getting information from the queue and sending it. The 2nd thread needs to check the queue for the information periodically.
But later I found this is reinvention of the wheel :) I could use a blocking queue for this purpose.
What are the other advantages of using a blocking queue for the above application? (Ex : Performance, Modifiable of the code, Any special tricks etc )
The main advantage is that a BlockingQueue provides a correct, thread-safe implementation. Developers have implemented this feature themselves for years, but it is tricky to get right. Now the runtime has an implementation developed, reviewed, and maintained by concurrency experts.
The "blocking" nature of the queue has a couple of advantages. First, on adding elements, if the queue capacity is limited, memory consumption is limited as well. Also, if the queue consumers get too far behind producers, the producers are naturally throttled since they have to wait to add elements. When taking elements from the queue, the main advantage is simplicity; waiting forever is trivial, and correctly waiting for a specified time-out is only a little more complicated.
They key thing you eliminate with the blocking queue is 'polling'. This is where you say
In that case the 2nd thread needs to check the queue for the information periodically.
This can be very inefficient - using much unnecessary CPU time. It can also introduce unneeded latencies.