Building a Distributed Message Log from Scratch - SCaLE 16x

@tyler_treat
Building a Distributed
Message Log from
Scratch
Tyler Treat · SCALE 16x · 3/11/18

@tyler_treat
- Managing Partner @ Real Kinetic

- Messaging & distributed systems

- Former nats.io core contributor

- bravenewgeek.com
Tyler Treat

@tyler_treat
- The Log 
-> What? 
-> Why?

- Implementation 
-> Storage mechanics 
-> Data-replication techniques 
-> Scaling message delivery 
-> Trade-oﬀs and lessons learned
Outline

@tyler_treat
The Log
A totally-ordered,
append-only data
structure.

@tyler_treat
0 1 2 3 4
The Log

@tyler_treat
0 1 2 3 4 5
The Log

@tyler_treat
0 1 2 3 4 5
newest recordoldest record
The Log

@tyler_treat
newest recordoldest record
The Log

@tyler_treat
Logs record what
happened and when.

@tyler_treat
caches
databases
indexes
writes

@tyler_treat
https://engineering.linkedin.com/distributed-systems/log-what-every-software-engineer-should-know-about-real-time-datas-unifying

@tyler_treat
Examples in the wild:
-> Apache Kafka 
-> Amazon Kinesis
-> NATS Streaming 
-> Apache Pulsar

@tyler_treat
Key Goals:
-> Performance
-> High Availability
-> Scalability

@tyler_treat
The purpose of this talk is to learn… 
-> a bit about the internals of a log abstraction.
-> how it can achieve these goals.
-> some applied distributed systems theory.

@tyler_treat
You will probably never need to
build something like this yourself,
but it helps to know how it works.

@tyler_treat
Implemen-
tation
Don’t try this at
home.

@tyler_treat
Storage 
Mechanics

@tyler_treat
Some ﬁrst principles…
• The log is an ordered, immutable sequence of messages
• Messages are atomic (meaning they can’t be broken up)
• The log has a notion of message retention based on some policies
(time, number of messages, bytes, etc.)
• The log can be played back from any arbitrary position
• The log is stored on disk
• Sequential disk access is fast*
• OS page cache means sequential access often avoids disk

@tyler_treat
http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=1563874

@tyler_treat
avg-cpu: %user %nice %system %iowait %steal %idle
13.53 0.00 11.28 0.00 0.00 75.19
Device: tps Blk_read/s Blk_wrtn/s Blk_read Blk_wrtn
xvda 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
iostat

@tyler_treat
Storage Mechanics
log ﬁle
0

@tyler_treat
Storage Mechanics
log ﬁle
0 1

@tyler_treat
Storage Mechanics
log ﬁle
0 1 2

@tyler_treat
Storage Mechanics
log ﬁle
0 1 2 3

@tyler_treat
Storage Mechanics
log ﬁle
0 1 2 3 4

@tyler_treat
Storage Mechanics
log ﬁle
0 1 2 3 4 5

@tyler_treat
Storage Mechanics
log ﬁle
…
0 1 2 3 4 5

@tyler_treat
Storage Mechanics
log segment 3 ﬁlelog segment 0 ﬁle
0 1 2 3 4 5

@tyler_treat
Storage Mechanics
log segment 3 filelog segment 0 file
0 1 2 3 4 5
0 1 2 0 1 2
index segment 0 file index segment 3 file

@tyler_treat
Zero-Copy Reads
user space
kernel space
page cache
disk
socket
NIC
application
read send

@tyler_treat
Zero-Copy Reads
user space
kernel space
page cache
disk NIC
sendﬁle

@tyler_treat
Left as an exercise for the listener… 
-> Batching 
-> Compression

@tyler_treat
Data-Replication 
Techniques

@tyler_treat
How do we achieve high availability
and fault tolerance?

@tyler_treat
Questions: 
-> How do we ensure continuity of reads/writes?
-> How do we replicate data?
-> How do we ensure replicas are consistent?
-> How do we keep things fast?
-> How do we ensure data is durable?

@tyler_treat
Data-Replication Techniques
1. Gossip/multicast protocols
Epidemic broadcast trees, bimodal multicast, SWIM, HyParView 
2. Consensus protocols
2PC/3PC, Paxos, Raft, Zab, chain replication

@tyler_treat
Data-Replication Techniques
1. Gossip/multicast protocols
Epidemic broadcast trees, bimodal multicast, SWIM, HyParView, NeEM 
2. Consensus protocols
2PC/3PC, Paxos, Raft, Zab, chain replication

@tyler_treat
Replication in Kafka
1. Select a leader
2. Maintain in-sync replica set (ISR) (initially every replica)
3. Leader writes messages to write-ahead log (WAL)
4. Leader commits messages when all replicas in ISR ack
5. Leader maintains high-water mark (HW) of last
committed message
6. Piggyback HW on replica fetch responses which
replicas periodically checkpoint to disk

@tyler_treat
0 1 2 3 4 5
b1 (leader)
0 1 2 3 4HW: 3
0 1 2 3
HW: 3
HW: 3
b2 (follower)
b3 (follower)ISR: {b1, b2, b3}
writes
Replication in Kafka

@tyler_treat
Failure Modes
1. Leader fails

@tyler_treat
0 1 2 3 4 5
b1 (leader)
0 1 2 3 4HW: 3
0 1 2 3
HW: 3
HW: 3
b2 (follower)
writes
Leader fails

@tyler_treat
0 1 2 3
HW: 3
0 1 2 3
HW: 3
b2 (leader)
b3 (follower)ISR: {b2, b3}
writes
Leader fails

@tyler_treat
Failure Modes
1. Leader fails 
2. Follower fails

@tyler_treat
0 1 2 3 4 5
b1 (leader)
0 1 2 3 4HW: 3
0 1 2 3
HW: 3
HW: 3
b2 (follower)
writes
Follower fails

@tyler_treat
Follower fails
0 1 2 3 4 5
b1 (leader)
0 1 2 3 4HW: 3
0 1 2 3
HW: 3
HW: 3
b2 (follower)
writes

@tyler_treat
Follower fails
0 1 2 3 4 5
b1 (leader)
0 1 2 3 4HW: 3
0 1 2 3
HW: 3
HW: 3
b2 (follower)
writes
replica.lag.time.max.ms

@tyler_treat
Follower fails
0 1 2 3 4 5
b1 (leader)
0 1 2 3 4HW: 5
0 1 2 3
HW: 5
HW: 3
b2 (follower)
writes
5

@tyler_treat
Follower fails
0 1 2 3 4 5
b1 (leader)
0 1 2 3 4HW: 5
0 1 2 3
HW: 5
HW: 4
b2 (follower)
writes
5
4

@tyler_treat
Follower fails
0 1 2 3 4 5
b1 (leader)
0 1 2 3 4HW: 5
0 1 2 3
HW: 5
HW: 5
b2 (follower)
writes
5
4 5

@tyler_treat
Replication in NATS Streaming
1. Raft replicates client state, messages, and
subscriptions 
2. Conceptually, two logs: Raft log and message log 
3. Parallels work implementing Raft in RabbitMQ

@tyler_treat
http://thesecretlivesofdata.com/raft

@tyler_treat
Replication in NATS Streaming
• Initially used Raft group per topic and separate
metadata group  
• A couple issues with this: 
-> Topic scalability 
-> Increased complexity due to lack of ordering between Raft groups

@tyler_treat
Challenges
1. Scaling topics

@tyler_treat
Scaling Raft
With a single topic, one node is elected leader and it
heartbeats messages to followers

@tyler_treat
Scaling Raft
As the number of topics increases, so does the number
of Raft groups.

@tyler_treat
Scaling Raft
Technique 1: run a ﬁxed number of Raft groups and use
a consistent hash to map a topic to a group.

@tyler_treat
Scaling Raft
Technique 2: run an entire node’s worth of topics as a
single group using a layer on top of Raft.
https://www.cockroachlabs.com/blog/scaling-raft

@tyler_treat
Scaling Raft
Technique 3: use a single Raft group for all topics and
metadata.

@tyler_treat
Challenges
1. Scaling topics
2. Dual writes

@tyler_treat
Dual Writes
Raft
Store
committed

@tyler_treat
Dual Writes
msg 1Raft
Store
committed

@tyler_treat
Dual Writes
msg 1 msg 2Raft
Store
committed

@tyler_treat
Dual Writes
msg 1 msg 2Raft
msg 1 msg 2Store
committed

@tyler_treat
Dual Writes
msg 1 msg 2 subRaft
msg 1 msg 2Store
committed

@tyler_treat
Dual Writes
msg 1 msg 2 sub msg 3Raft
msg 1 msg 2Store
committed

@tyler_treat
Dual Writes
msg 1 msg 2 sub msg 3
add
peer
msg 4Raft
msg 1 msg 2 msg 3Store
committed

@tyler_treat
Dual Writes
add
peer
msg 4Raft
msg 1 msg 2 msg 3 msg 4Store
commit

@tyler_treat
Dual Writes
add
peer
msg 4Raft
msg 1 msg 2 msg 3 msg 4Store
0 1 2 3 4 5
0 1 2 3
physical oﬀset
logical oﬀset

@tyler_treat
Dual Writes
add
peer
msg 4Raft
msg 1 msg 2Index
0 1 2 3 4 5
0 1 2 3
physical oﬀset
logical oﬀset
msg 3 msg 4

@tyler_treat
Treat the Raft log as our message
write-ahead log.

@tyler_treat
Performance
1. Publisher acks  
-> broker acks on commit (slow but safe) 
-> broker acks on local log append (fast but unsafe) 
-> publisher doesn’t wait for ack (fast but unsafe)  
2. Don’t fsync, rely on replication for durability 
3. Keep disk access sequential and maximize zero-copy reads 
4. Batch aggressively

@tyler_treat
Durability
1. Quorum guarantees durability 
-> Comes for free with Raft 
-> In Kafka, need to conﬁgure min.insync.replicas and acks, e.g. 
topic with replication factor 3, min.insync.replicas=2, and 
acks=all 
2. Disable unclean leader elections 
3. At odds with availability, 
i.e. no quorum == no reads/writes

@tyler_treat
Scaling Message 
Delivery

@tyler_treat
Scaling Message Delivery
1. Partitioning

@tyler_treat
Partitioning is how we scale linearly.

@tyler_treat
HELLA WRITES
caches
databases
indexes

@tyler_treat
caches
databases
indexes
HELLA WRITES

@tyler_treat
caches
databases
indexes
writes
writes
writes
writes
Topic: purchases
Topic: inventory

@tyler_treat
caches
databases
indexes
writes
writes
writes
writes
Topic: purchases
Topic: inventory
Accounts A-M
Accounts N-Z
SKUs A-M
SKUs N-Z

@tyler_treat
1. Partitioning
2. High fan-out

@tyler_treat
Kinesis Fan-Out
consumers
shard-1
consumers
shard-2
consumers
shard-3
writes

@tyler_treat
Replication in Kafka and NATS
Streaming is purely a means of HA.

@tyler_treat
High Fan-Out
1. Observation: with an immutable log, there are no
stale/phantom reads 
2. This should make it “easy” (in theory) to scale to a
large number of consumers 
3. With Raft, we can use “non-voters” to act as read
replicas and load balance consumers

@tyler_treat
1. Partitioning
2. High fan-out
3. Push vs. pull

@tyler_treat
Push vs. Pull
• In Kafka, consumers pull data from brokers
• In NATS Streaming, brokers push data to consumers
• Design implications:
• Fan-out
• Flow control
• Optimizing for latency vs. throughput
• Client complexity

@tyler_treat
Trade-Oﬀs and 
Lessons Learned

@tyler_treat
Trade-Offs and Lessons Learned
1. Competing goals

@tyler_treat
Competing Goals
1. Performance 
-> Easy to make something fast that’s not fault-tolerant or scalable 
-> Simplicity of mechanism makes this easier 
-> Simplicity of “UX” makes this harder
2. Scalability and fault-tolerance 
-> At odds with simplicity 
-> Cannot be an afterthought
3. Simplicity 
-> Simplicity of mechanism shifts complexity elsewhere (e.g. client) 
-> Easy to let server handle complexity; hard when that needs to be 
distributed, consistent, and fast

@tyler_treat
1. Competing goals
2. Aim for simplicity

@tyler_treat
Distributed systems are complex enough. 
Simple is usually better (and faster).

@tyler_treat
“A complex system that works
is invariably found to have
evolved from a simple system
that works.”

@tyler_treat
1. Competing goals
3. You can’t effectively bolt on fault-tolerance

@tyler_treat
“A complex system designed from
scratch never works and cannot
be patched up to make it work.
You have to start over, beginning
with a working simple system.”

@tyler_treat
1. Competing goals
4. Lean on existing work

@tyler_treat
Don’t roll your own coordination protocol, 
use Raft, ZooKeeper, etc.

@tyler_treat
1. Competing goals
5. There are probably edge cases for which you
haven’t written tests

@tyler_treat
There are many failure modes, and you can
only write so many tests. 
 
Formal methods and property-based/
generative testing can help.

@tyler_treat
1. Competing goals
5. There are probably edge cases for which you
haven’t written tests
6. Be honest with your users

@tyler_treat
Don’t try to be everything to everyone. 
Be explicit about design decisions, trade-
offs, guarantees, defaults, etc.

@tyler_treat
https://bravenewgeek.com/tag/building-a-distributed-log-from-scratch/

@tyler_treat
Thanks!
bravenewgeek.com

realkinetic.com

Building a Distributed Message Log from Scratch - SCaLE 16x

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (20)

Similaire à Building a Distributed Message Log from Scratch - SCaLE 16x

Similaire à Building a Distributed Message Log from Scratch - SCaLE 16x (20)

Plus de Tyler Treat

Plus de Tyler Treat (9)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

Building a Distributed Message Log from Scratch - SCaLE 16x