Logo Questions Linux Laravel Mysql Ubuntu Git Menu
 

Akka and state among actors in cluster

I am working on my bc thesis project which should be a Minecraft server written in scala and Akka. The server should be easily deployable in the cloud or onto a cluster (not sure whether i use proper terminology...it should run on multiple nodes). I am, however, newbie in akka and i have been wondering how to implement such a thing. The problem i'm trying to figure out right now, is how to share state among actors on different nodes. My first idea was to have an Camel actor that would read tcp stream from minecraft clients and then send it to load balancer which would select a node that would process the request and then send some response to the client via tcp. Lets say i have an AuthenticationService implementing actor that checks whether the credentials provided by user are valid. Every node would have such actor(or perhaps more of them) and all the actors should have exactly same database (or state) of users all the time. My question is, what is the best approach to keep this state? I have came up with some solutions i could think of, but i haven't done anything like this so please point out the faults:

Solution #1: Keep state in a database. This would probably work very well for this authentication example where state is only represented by something like list of username and passwords but it probably wouldn't work in cases where state contains objects that can't be easily broken into integers and strings.

Solution #2: Every time there would be a request to a certain actor that would change it's state, the actor will, after processing the request, broadcast information about the change to all other actors of the same type whom would change their state according to the info send by the original actor. This seems very inefficient and rather clumsy.

Solution #3: Having a certain node serve as sort of a state node, in which there would be actors that represent the state of the entire server. Any other actor, except the actors in such node would have no state and would ask actors in the "state node" everytime they would need some data. This seems also inefficient and kinda fault-nonproof.

So there you have it. Only solution i actually like is the first one, but like i said, it probably works in only very limited subset of problems (when state can be broken into redis structures). Any response from more experienced gurus would be very appriciated. Regards, Tomas Herman

like image 967
Arg Avatar asked Mar 31 '11 10:03

Arg


People also ask

What is an Akka cluster?

Akka Cluster provides a fault-tolerant decentralized peer-to-peer based Cluster Membership Service with no single point of failure or single point of bottleneck. It does this using gossip protocols and an automatic failure detector.

What actors are present in clusters?

The usual actors in clusters are firms. Hence, defining a specific set of firms as A is a natural choice. Clusters are usually defined on the level of industries. This implies that all firms belonging to one industry can make up the set of actors.

What is Akka cluster Sharding?

In this context sharding means that actors with an identifier, so called entities, can be automatically distributed across multiple nodes in the cluster. Each entity actor runs only at one place, and messages can be sent to the entity without requiring the sender to know the location of the destination actor.

What is actor model in Akka?

Akka Actors The Actor Model provides a higher level of abstraction for writing concurrent and distributed systems. It alleviates the developer from having to deal with explicit locking and thread management, making it easier to write correct concurrent and parallel systems.


1 Answers

Solution #1 could possibly be slow. Also, it is a bottleneck and a single point of failure (meaning the application stops working if the node with the database fails). Solution #3 has similar problems.

Solution #2 is less trivial than it seems. First, it is a single point of failure. Second, there are no atomicity or other ordering guarantees (such as regularity) for reads or writes, unless you do a total order broadcast (which is more expensive than a regular broadcast). In fact, most distributed register algorithms will do broadcasts under-the-hood, so, while inefficient, it may be necessary.

From what you've described, you need atomicity for your distributed register. What do I mean by atomicity? Atomicity means that any read or write in a sequence of concurrent reads and writes appears as if it occurs in single point in time. Informally, in the Solution #2 with a single actor holding a register, this guarantees that if 2 subsequent writes W1 and then W2 to the register occur (meaning 2 broadcasts), then no other actor reading the values from the register will read them in the order different than first W1 and then W2 (it's actually more involved than that). If you go through a couple of examples of subsequent broadcasts where messages arrive to destination at different points in time, you will see that such an ordering property isn't guaranteed at all.

If ordering guarantees or atomicity aren't an issue, some sort of a gossip-based algorithm might do the trick to slowly propagate changes to all the nodes. This probably wouldn't be very helpful in your example.

If you want fully fault-tolerant and atomic, I recommend you to read this book on reliable distributed programming by Rachid Guerraoui and Luís Rodrigues, or the parts related to distributed register abstractions. These algorithms are built on top of a message passing communication layer and maintain a distributed register supporting read and write operations. You can use such an algorithm to store distributed state information. However, they aren't applicable to thousands of nodes or large clusters because they do not scale, typically having complexity polynomial in the number of nodes.

On the other hand, you may not need to have the state of the distributed register replicated across all of the nodes - replicating it across a subset of your nodes (instead of just one node) and accessing those to read or write from it, providing a certain level of fault-tolerance (only if the entire subset of nodes fails, will the register information be lost). You can possibly adapt the algorithms in the book to serve this purpose.

like image 183
axel22 Avatar answered Nov 08 '22 11:11

axel22