4

Let's assume i app have with basic flow:

  1. Client send request to server
  2. Server do some business logic
  3. Server puts message into some message queue
  4. Server returns success to the client
  5. microservice A reads the message from message queue and process it - be it some email

microservice that generates and sends email to the client , or some audit/logging microservice that process the message and log the data somewher - be it whatever

Now my question is as follow: what happens when our microservice A fails, but we want to have as much uptime as possible and dont want to process data more than once?

The most basic solution ( but without much uptime ) is to have queue that requires confirmation from client before it deletes the message from queue. In that case the flow for microservice would be

  1. Reads message
  2. Proces it
  3. send email/log the data whatever
  4. confirm to the queue to delete the message

This is however flow without error, if this flow fails in the 2. step, the microservice just restarts and just do whole flow again, since message in the message queue stayed there and wasnt deleted.

Now what happens when the microservice fails after 4th step? Everything is done, email is sent/audit is logged but after that microservice fails and message in queue remains, thus if the microservice restarts, it sees message in queue and process same message twice, if we add some additional DB layer to the flow ( like storing what was processed and what not ) it can still fail before the microservice stores the data into the DB.

Another solution that has better uptime is to have load balancer with multiple instances of microservice A behind it, and these microservices shares the state between them, but as far as im aware, these microservices have to exchange heartbeat and confirm they processed the request from client - but since "processing" here means sending data somewhere, it can process it and then fail , so the heartbeat wont go on, replicated instances gets promoted to the main, reads the message again and process it again and now we are processing it multiple times, which may not be wanted at all in many cases.

I may be out of the loop and my solutions i wrote here may be completely wrong, but how are things like this dealed with? The more i read about distributed systems and so on the more questions i have.

This is not problem i am facing and the system does not have to use message queues/ or the microservices doesnt have to neccessary send email or log data - this is more of general problem question.

Thanks for help and answers!

12
  • 6
    This is why most documentation of micro-service/message queue systems stresses that they work best when all actions are idempotent, i.e. they have the same effect whether executed once or twice. A database write is idempotent, sending an email is not. Commented Oct 31, 2023 at 10:05
  • 1
    @Johnyb There isn't a general solution. You make an application/business logic specific decision, which sometimes might be "just do the thing twice because it doesn't really matter" and sometimes might be having a second layer to handle duplicates. Commented Oct 31, 2023 at 10:26
  • 3
    My personal suggestion is to stop reading books and go and actually work on a distributed system; that's the only way you are actually forced to evaluate the tradeoffs you have to make when doing software design. Commented Oct 31, 2023 at 12:02
  • 1
    Most queues will hide a message that is in the process of being consumed by someome until either a timeout occurs or the message is explicitly deleted from the queue by consumer. This ensures a message is only even consumed once in best case scenarios. When something goes wrong, it may or may not result in several mails sent. It's up to business to decide if that is a problem.
    – Ccm
    Commented Oct 31, 2023 at 15:02
  • 1
    "however even in that case you will encounter problem that you will need to google/ask question like this" - yes, and then, when you are going to ask a question about the specific case, you have something at hand which this question currently has not: real world context. And such questions are a lot better suited for this site than hypothetical ones (which does not mean this question is currently a bad one).
    – Doc Brown
    Commented Oct 31, 2023 at 16:44

2 Answers 2

0

ACID property of databases can be used for this. Database is shared, multi-instance, and manages its own uptime. This approach increases the number of components in the system, but if "email only once" is important, one would do something like this. Email protocol itself has problems, as we will see later.

  1. Request comes to process item A
  2. It is put into a database with timestamp. If item A itself has uniqueness, that is the primary key, otherwise the inbound API gateway generates a unique key for each incoming request. Assume the unique key is A.
  3. N instances are running, instance i picks up the processing of item A. So it inserts an entry in a database table, "processingInstance = i, itemId = A". This table has a unique constraint on these itemId, so no other instance can add another constraint. If instance j tries, it will get a unique constraint violation.
  4. After processing, instance i makes another database entry in another table : "processedBy = i, itemId = A, result = XYZ, timestamp = t". Another type of application picks up results from here, and sends email.

Points to be noted :

i. In step 3, instances pick up items not picked by any other instance. 2 instances might TRY to pick up the same item, but only one will succeed due to the unique constraint.

ii. A background application keeps monitoring results table. If any entry in incoming table that is 1 hour old does not have any entry in results table, do the following :

a. Ring alarm bells, let devops check. This is manual, but I'll explain how it will be kept to manageable levels.

b. If it was not picked up by any instance, instances are overloaded, or there is a bug. Number of instances can be increased, their CPU/ memory etc. can be increased, or bug can be fixed. Ideally and eventually, there should be no bug and instance scaling should be automatic, so this manual effort will go down as the application matures.

c. If it was picked up by instance i, go check i. It must be ill, or there should be a bug. Fix the bug. The illness should have been detected by instance probes, see why it was not done.

This step can be partially automated : if we are confident in the time limit of 1 hour, the database entry giving ownership of item A to instance i should be removed automatically. Another instance j will then pick up the item A.

These are the general directions, I might have missed some steps. Since we are closing loopholes, some more due diligence will have to be done. But ACID works well for this problem, and databases are able to scale well for this purpose generally. Shard them using uniqueness of A, if they don't scale.

1
  • I forgot email. Sometimes email sending fails, and the sending service retries for many hours before giving up. Your email sending service should be good if you want only one email sent.
    – Jeeves
    Commented Nov 3, 2023 at 14:01
0

If you want to learn about serious DS problems then read about Raft. It solves Distributed Consensus just as well as Lamport's awesome Paxos, but in a deliberately easier-to-understand way. Ok, back to the client transaction you proposed.

Technologies like email and SMS are inherently non-idempotent, and thus not a good match for what you're driving at. Let's set the controls of the Way Back machine to a gentler simpler time, when people sometimes communicated (flamed?) via NNTP Usenet messages. They look a lot like email.

Usenet gossip messages are idempotent. A client could send one message or N copies of it, with the same effect. How does that work? Recipients would de-dup on the Message-ID header field. Dups are silently discarded, so only the initial message counts. In your scenario, Server (or even Client) should specify a Message-ID.

Email systems can offer similar semantics, but there's no strong specification for MTAs or MUAs to offer it. So it is "nice to have" behavior, not solid enough to rely on.


An email sender can append a unique message ID to a persistent datastore before sending a message, and append a "success" record after it's sent.

Attempted resends can suppress dup sends by noticing the ID already appears in the datastore in a "success" record. If we were to log the ID, and then something were to happen during Send and we never log success, it's probably best to let some future invocation attempt a retry.

It's worth noting that SMTP verbs have the same ambiguity. After sending a DATA command, either we receive a {good, bad} status reply or we don't -- not a strong foundation on which to build idempotency.


Your question about message delivery boils down to these concerns:

  • lost message is delivered zero times
  • exactly once delivery
  • multiple deliveries must be de-dup'd

The Kafka folks have done some excellent work on exactly-once delivery. You could do worse than to build atop Kafka.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.