[akka-user] Re: Pulling Pattern vs Durable Mailboxes

Thank you again Ryan for answering my questions and thank you to everyone else who joined in the conversation. I think the discussion here has made me re-consider using the pulling pattern since it fits my use case pretty well. And yes, I agree Roland, this community is awesome! -- >>

[akka-user] Re: Pulling Pattern vs Durable Mailboxes

I should make it clear: neither the facade or the work pulling pattern are our creation—both came from the Akka docs or the letiticrash.com blog. We've tweaked it a bit as we've run into problems but I don't want anyone to think I'm trying to take credit for those ideas. On Saturday, May 10, 2

[akka-user] Re: Pulling Pattern vs Durable Mailboxes

Glad to help! You're understanding of (1) is mostly correct, but the facades don't subscribe to DeathWatch on the supervisor actors, just cluster event notifications. 1a: All work messages (start, acknowledge, complete, error) are tagged with a UUID for that chunk of work and that's used to ro

[akka-user] Re: Pulling Pattern vs Durable Mailboxes

Hi Ryan, Thank you so much for the detailed explanation. It really helped clarify some things. Just got a couple more questions: 1. This is more of a clarification about facades. So as you mentioned above, facades subscribe themselves to cluster event notifications and when they receive (I'm g

[akka-user] Re: Pulling Pattern vs Durable Mailboxes

Hi Luis, 1. First just to make sure I understood what you guys ended up doing, > whenever your supervisor crashes, an event is sent to some sort of event > bus to which workers your are subscribed to which let's them know that > their supervisor is down. When this happens, each worker that was

Re: [akka-user] Re: Pulling Pattern vs Durable Mailboxes

Very helpful, thanks 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 be

Re: [akka-user] Re: Pulling Pattern vs Durable Mailboxes

On 07.05.14 17:10, Matthew Howard wrote: On Wednesday, May 7, 2014 12:57:23 AM UTC-4, Martin Krasser wrote: Please not that the primary use case for persistent channels is to deal with slow and/or temporarily available consumers/destinations. It is not optimized for high throughput

[akka-user] Re: Pulling Pattern vs Durable Mailboxes

> > I'm the author of the blog post from Conspire you referenced. In our > case, losing the supervisor isn't a problem because all work is generated > from a SQL database. If the supervisor crashes, we can just start over. > Our worker nodes subscribe to cluster event notifications and will

[akka-user] Re: Pulling Pattern vs Durable Mailboxes

Woah, that is weird! Thanks for the heads-up, I'll look into it. On Wednesday, May 7, 2014 8:40:34 PM UTC-6, Chris Toomey wrote: > > Great blog posts and great discussion here. > > Ryan, your blog > post

[akka-user] Re: Pulling Pattern vs Durable Mailboxes

Great blog posts and great discussion here. Ryan, your blog posthas some kind of CSS problem that's causing the code snippets to render very poorly and practically illegibly for the bigger ones -- it'

[akka-user] Re: Pulling Pattern vs Durable Mailboxes

Apologies for the double-post. The below thread re: throughput and performance benchmarks seems relevant... including for my future self: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/akka-user/7GE495Ks-5c/YntYlSCd4ysJ -- >> Read the docs: http://akka.io/docs/ >> Check the FAQ: >>>

Re: [akka-user] Re: Pulling Pattern vs Durable Mailboxes

On Wednesday, May 7, 2014 12:57:23 AM UTC-4, Martin Krasser wrote: > > > Please not that the primary use case for persistent channels is to deal > with slow and/or temporarily available consumers/destinations. It is not > optimized for high throughput (yet). More detailed, a persistent channel >

Re: [akka-user] Re: Pulling Pattern vs Durable Mailboxes

On 06.05.14 21:13, Matthew Howard wrote: On Tuesday, May 6, 2014 2:06:16 AM UTC-4, Martin Krasser wrote: You may be interested in this pull request that enables reading from akka-persistence journals via reactive-stream pro

Re: [akka-user] Re: Pulling Pattern vs Durable Mailboxes

On Tuesday, May 6, 2014 2:06:16 AM UTC-4, Martin Krasser wrote: You may be interested in this pull requestthat enables reading from akka-persistence journals via reactive-stream >> producers. > > Yea, actually that looks much like what I had in mind.

Re: [akka-user] Re: Pulling Pattern vs Durable Mailboxes

> 6 maj 2014 kl. 17:38 skrev Ryan Tanner : > > I'm the author of the blog post from Conspire you referenced. In our case, > losing the supervisor isn't a problem because all work is generated from a > SQL database. If the supervisor crashes, we can just start over. Our worker > nodes subs

[akka-user] Re: Pulling Pattern vs Durable Mailboxes

I'm the author of the blog post from Conspire you referenced. In our case, losing the supervisor isn't a problem because all work is generated from a SQL database. If the supervisor crashes, we can just start over. Our worker nodes subscribe to cluster event notifications and will queue their

[akka-user] Re: Pulling Pattern vs Durable Mailboxes

> > I wouldn't be surprised if there were also some good options using Akka > alone. On top of my large queue concerns with Rabbit I didn't particularly > feel like adding another component into the mix if I didn't need to. I > wouldn't be shocked if you could do something pretty cleanly with j

Re: [akka-user] Re: Pulling Pattern vs Durable Mailboxes

On 06.05.14 06:56, Matthew Howard wrote: Our design is still a bit young, but we're going with a work pulling pattern right now... which is something that has worked well for me in the past (this is my first Akka impl though). In terms of the overall approach of using a queue/datastore effecti

[akka-user] Re: Pulling Pattern vs Durable Mailboxes

Our design is still a bit young, but we're going with a work pulling pattern right now... which is something that has worked well for me in the past (this is my first Akka impl though). In terms of the overall approach of using a queue/datastore effectively as a replacement for a mailbox (or im

[akka-user] Re: Pulling Pattern vs Durable Mailboxes

> > I was considering almost the same thing, but talked myself out of it after > reading this: ( > http://www.rabbitmq.com/blog/2012/04/25/rabbitmq-performance-measurements-part-2/see > section "Large Queues"). RabbitMQ queues messages in memory, regardless > of whether they are durable. The du

[akka-user] Re: Pulling Pattern vs Durable Mailboxes

> > This got me thinking about a possible alternative to doing this pulling > pattern which is to do pushing but with durable mailboxes. An example I was > thinking of was implementing a mailbox that used RabbitMQ (other data > stores like Redis, MongoDB, Kafka, etc would also work here) and th