[openstack-dev] Zero MQ remove central broker. Architecture change.
eric at windisch.us
Tue Nov 18 17:49:24 UTC 2014
> I think for this cycle we really do need to focus on consolidating and
> testing the existing driver design and fixing up the biggest
> deficiency (1) before we consider moving forward with lots of new
> 1) Outbound messaging connection re-use - right now every outbound
> messaging creates and consumes a tcp connection - this approach scales
> badly when neutron does large fanout casts.
I'm glad you are looking at this and by doing so, will understand the
system better. I hope the following will give some insight into, at least,
why I made the decisions I made:
This was an intentional design trade-off. I saw three choices here: build a
fully decentralized solution, build a fully-connected network, or use
centralized brokerage. I wrote off centralized brokerage immediately. The
problem with a fully connected system is that active TCP connections are
required between all of the nodes. I didn't think that would scale and
would be brittle against floods (intentional or otherwise).
IMHO, I always felt the right solution for large fanout casts was to use
multicast. When the driver was written, Neutron didn't exist and there was
no use-case for large fanout casts, so I didn't implement multicast, but
knew it as an option if it became necessary. It isn't the right solution
for everyone, of course.
For connection reuse, you could manage a pool of connections and keep those
connections around for a configurable amount of time, after which they'd
expire and be re-opened. This would keep the most actively used connections
alive. One problem is that it would make the service more brittle by making
it far more susceptible to running out of file descriptors by keeping
connections around significantly longer. However, this wouldn't be as
brittle as fully-connecting the nodes nor as poorly scalable.
If OpenStack and oslo.messaging were designed specifically around this
message pattern, I might suggest that the library and its applications be
aware of high-traffic topics and persist the connections for those topics,
while keeping others ephemeral. A good example for Nova would be
api->scheduler traffic would be persistent, whereas scheduler->compute_node
would be ephemeral. Perhaps this is something that could still be added to
2) PUSH/PULL tcp sockets - Pieter suggested we look at ROUTER/DEALER
> as an option once 1) is resolved - this socket type pairing has some
> interesting features which would help with resilience and availability
> including heartbeating.
Using PUSH/PULL does not eliminate the possibility of being fully
connected, nor is it incompatible with persistent connections. If you're
not going to be fully-connected, there isn't much advantage to long-lived
persistent connections and without those persistent connections, you're not
benefitting from features such as heartbeating.
I'm not saying ROUTER/DEALER cannot be used, but use them with care.
They're designed for long-lived channels between hosts and not for the
ephemeral-type connections used in a peer-to-peer system. Dealing with how
to manage timeouts on the client and the server and the swelling number of
active file descriptions that you'll get by using ROUTER/DEALER is not
trivial, assuming you can get past the management of all of those
synchronous sockets (hidden away by tons of eventlet greenthreads)...
Extra anecdote: During a conversation at the OpenStack summit, someone told
me about their experiences using ZeroMQ and the pain of using REQ/REP
sockets and how they felt it was a mistake they used them. We discussed a
bit about some other problems such as the fact it's impossible to avoid TCP
fragmentation unless you force all frames to 552 bytes or have a
well-managed network where you know the MTUs of all the devices you'll pass
through. Suggestions were made to make ZeroMQ better, until we realized we
had just described TCP-over-ZeroMQ-over-TCP, finished our beers, and
quickly changed topics.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the OpenStack-dev