9 maj 2014 kl. 09:58 skrev Martin Krasser <krass...@googlemail.com>:
> > On 09.05.14 09:25, Roland Kuhn wrote: >> >> 9 maj 2014 kl. 09:08 skrev Martin Krasser <krass...@googlemail.com>: >> >>> >>> On 09.05.14 08:41, Roland Kuhn wrote: >>>> Hi Martin, >>>> >>>> 9 maj 2014 kl. 08:05 skrev Martin Krasser <krass...@googlemail.com>: >>>> >>>>> Hi Roland, >>>>> >>>>> thanks for starting a discussion on this. Here are some initial thoughts >>>>> on your proposal: >>>>> >>>>> "... very same throughput optimization by applying the state changes >>>>> before persisting them ..." >>>>> >>>>> I think we agree that whatever changes are going to be made in the >>>>> future, we must keep the throughput optimizations (by batching >>>>> writes/updates). As you said, with an EP, this can only be achieved by >>>>> applying events to current state *before* persisting them. Furthermore, >>>>> to enable batching, an EP must therefore be able to process new commands >>>>> while (previous) events are about to be persisted. This however has a >>>>> very important consequence for commands that read current state. If we >>>>> allow events to be applied to current state *before* persisting them, we >>>>> allow clients to read state from that EP that may not be re-readable >>>>> after a crash. For example: >>>>> >>>>> - EP receives update command, derives event and applies it immediately to >>>>> current state >>>>> - EP (asynchronously) persists event >>>>> - EP receives a read command (while event persistence is in progress) >>>>> - EP (successfully) returns read response to requestor >>>>> - EP JVM crashes before event was successfully persisted >>>>> - EP state cannot be reconstructed i.e. previous read cannot be repeated. >>>> >>>> This is only true if the recovery is incomplete: the update command will >>>> not have been acknowledged at this point, so if someone cared about it >>>> they will send it again during recovery and the EP will eventually end up >>>> in a state where the read will return the same value again. If this type >>>> of consistency is not good enough, then you can always defer reads within >>>> the write model until after persistence is completed, meaning that the >>>> read is only performed once a corresponding read “event” has gone through >>>> the journal. We could allow events that are only looped through to make >>>> this work, just like non-Persistent commands are looped today (and for the >>>> same reason). >>> >>> Delaying reads is only an option when reads are made via messages to a >>> (E)P. If my processor manages state via an STM ref where only the processor >>> updates the STM ref but reads go directly to the STM ref, then you cannot >>> delay reads. >> >> In this scenario you would delay updating the STM ref until after the >> persistence loop, which is exactly the same as for a current command-sourced >> Processor: the read gets delayed until after the writes are processed, in >> the same way the STM ref update gets delayed by the write having to go >> through the journal. Effects, consistency and latency are the same in both >> implementations. > > That's true. So, to achieve > > - repeatable reads > - low read latency and > - high write throughput > > reads can go to the STM refs directly and EP must update the STM ref only > after having persisted the events. If one *additionally* wants to achieve > > - read-your-own-write consistency (assuming a client issues an update > command, immediately followed by a read command) > > one would need a way to loop read commands through the journal as well before > serving them (which probably requires an addition to the API then). > Alternatively, a client only issues a read after having received a write-ack > (at the cost of an additional roundtrip). This is an interesting remark: normally read-your-writes is only guaranteed for reads submitted after having received the ACK for the write, so what we are providing here is actually a qualitative improvement on that status quo that is only possible in Reactive systems (normally the ACK is signaled by a synchronous non-exceptional method return). > Anyway, I think you convinced me, as usual :) Great proposal, Dr Kuhn! And as usual you helped in refining the proposal: the addition of looping non-persistent events through the journal is an important one, thanks for providing the use-case! So, to summarize, we can incorporate all current functionality provided by Processor and Channel into EventsourcedProcessor by adding the following two features: the ability to opt out of stashing everything while waiting for persist()ing the ability to loop non-persistent events through the journal Everyone, please consider what this would mean for your code base and comment, now is the right time to speak up! The same goes for opinions on whether PersistentChannel pulls its weight or not (as argued earlier in this thread). Regards, Roland > > Cheers, > Martin > > -- > >>>>>>>>>> Read the docs: http://akka.io/docs/ > >>>>>>>>>> Check the FAQ: > >>>>>>>>>> http://doc.akka.io/docs/akka/current/additional/faq.html > >>>>>>>>>> Search the archives: https://groups.google.com/group/akka-user > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Akka User List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to akka-user+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to akka-user@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/akka-user. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. Dr. Roland Kuhn Akka Tech Lead Typesafe – Reactive apps on the JVM. twitter: @rolandkuhn -- >>>>>>>>>> Read the docs: http://akka.io/docs/ >>>>>>>>>> Check the FAQ: >>>>>>>>>> http://doc.akka.io/docs/akka/current/additional/faq.html >>>>>>>>>> Search the archives: https://groups.google.com/group/akka-user --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Akka User List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to akka-user+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to akka-user@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/akka-user. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.