As the focus on the Internet of Things intensifies, SAS Event Stream Processing (ESP) momentum continues to build. A public SAS web page highlights this growing area of streaming analytics by explaining a relatively new offering named SAS Analytics for IoT and its capabilities, of which SAS ESP is the centerpiece. One can expect that additional offerings will follow as other solutions explore and identify ways integrate SAS ESP that provide value and a competitive edge.
Driven by an internet that never sleeps, corporations are becoming more global in nature resulting in an increased demand in continuous accessibility. Customers implementing these offerings and solutions will integrate them with live streaming sources and likely expect key portions of related offerings be highly available. Given this expectation, it may be beneficial to familiarize yourself with the concepts and components of SAS ESP failover. In this blog we will identify the components, their prerequisites and setup, and step through a brief test of failover created within a SAS internal environment. This blog assumes familiarity with basic SAS ESP and RabbitMQ architecture and components.
Most people are familiar with some of the basic concepts of highly available systems and failover. These terms are not synonymous, but are related. Failover is one mechanism implemented to improve availability. The idea is to ensure uninterrupted processing of data in the event of a failure within a business critical environment.
While Hadoop duplicates data blocks and then shifts processing to the nodes with the duplicate blocks in the event of a node failure to enhance availability, SAS ESP employs the concept of active/standby to improve availability. In an active/standby environment, one host acts as the active node and one or more hosts provide standby capability waiting to take over processing in the event of a failure. The following diagram depicts the basic components of SAS ESP failover setup.
The following list highlights the key components and steps for establishing a failover environment.
This section only briefly touched on the basics of ESP failover. For a more complete description and understanding please review Chapter 21, "Implementing 1+N-Way Failover" in the SAS® Event Stream Processing 3.2 - User’s Guide.
Since message bus appliances are not readily available in within our environment, testing a failover scenario required using the RabbitMQ message bus. As noted earlier RabbitMQ is readily available as open source software. Therefore these prerequisites were completed for a RabbitMQ environment. Greater detail can be found in the SAS ESP User's Guide.
Once RabbitMQ has been installed and the various related components configured, the next step is to create a model with appropriate connectors and adapters in a failover environment. Of course we will need at least two machines. An environment meeting this requirement was created for an internal course. This collection contains two machines, one Red Hat and one Windows. A model, based on the VWAP model (tradesDemo) available in the ESP examples, was created on the Red Hat machine and tested in SAS ESP Studio. The following screen shot from SAS ESP Studio shows the windows defined in the model. This model was initially tested using the file and socket connectors.
The model was then modified to receive data from a dynamic queue bound to a specific routing key by adding a connector to the source window. When data is published by the file and socket adapter using the transport option it publishes to a dynamic RabbitMQ queue that is subsequently consumed by a connector defined in the source window. In order to publish to a RabbitMQ exchange an exchange was created manually. An exchange serves the role of a message router. In this test the same exchange was also used for subscribing.
In a similar manner, a RabbitMQ connector was defined in one of the aggregate windows that will push events to a second RabbitMQ queue via the exchange. A second file and socket adapter was then executed to subscribe to events by creating a dynamic queue for an exchange and routing key and write them to a file. The model was tested on the Red Hat machine using the trades1M.csv sample file to ensure events successfully flow through the model and are written to a CSV file.
To summarize the following steps were taken to setup the failover environment
The following diagram provides an overview of the failover environment that was created. TradesRMQ is the engine instance and trades is the project name, not to be confused with the exchange name. The RabbitMQ message bus, SAS ESP adapters and one instance of the ESP engine ran on the Red Hat machine, sasserver01.race.sas.com. The CSV "event" files, published and subscribed, were also located on the Red Hat machine. The only thing that runs on the Windows machine is the second instance of the TradesRMQ engine.
Now that RabbitMQ has been installed and configured and connectors in the models have been modified to use RabbitMQ queues, it is time to test. As you might imagine, at least two tests are necessary: one test without a failed ESP server and one test with a failed ESP server.
Earlier in our model setup the XML servers were started. The next step loaded the modified model in Test mode in SAS ESP Studio on each host and start it. At this point the adapters have not been started so there are no events flowing.
The web-based RabbitMQ management tool can be used to monitor and watch queues. It was noted earlier that the Trades exchange was defined. Queues are bound to this exchange and routing keys are used to direct events within RabbitMQ. After starting the models in Test mode, the list of exchanges can be viewed using the management tool and it appeared as follows.
We discussed that the Trades exchange was manually created. However, once the model was started the Trades_failoverpresence exchange was automatically created by the subscriber connectors. The subscriber connector is configured with the “hotfailover” option which triggers the creation of the Trades_failoverpresence exchange. Notice the exchange Type is x-presence, which is the plug-in that was added after RabbitMQ was installed. This is the mechanism that detects which engine is active and binds to a Standby engine if the Active engine fails.
Even though no events have been published to the model, queues have been created and appear in the following screen shot of the queues status. Although it is beyond the scope of this blog, there are queues created for connectors, subscribers, failover and metadata This metadata includes information about messages. Additional information about each queue can be viewed by selecting the queue name.
Now that the model is running in test mode, the next step is to start the file and socket adapter to subscribe to the Aggregate24HR window within the model using the transport option. The command is shown below.
Notice the last parameter. The -l parameter specifies the transport type. When rabbitmq is specified it looks for the rabbitmq.cfg configuration file in the current directory for RabbitMQ connection information. This was configured in an earlier step. The subscriber is started before the publisher to ensure all events are captured from the model.
The subscriber adapter creates a new associated queue that is specified as the “Output” queue, as indicated by the last character in the queue name shown below. Events processed by the Aggregate24HR window are placed in this queue where the adapter retrieves them and writes them to the trades1M_aggr24hr.csv file.
Now that the model is running in test mode and a subscriber adapter has been started, a file and socket adapter is started to publish events into the model. Again the -l option is specified to indicate using the transport option using rabbitmq as the message bus. The command to accomplish this is shown below.
Typically the block parameter is specified to reduce overhead, but in this scenario blocking was not specified resulting in a blocking factor of one. This was done to intentionally slow the throughput.
As events start flowing through the model it is possible to review the number of events blocks incoming to the queue and delivered to the connector.
After all events have been published, an HTTP request to HTTP admin port on each XML server can be used to provide confirmation that both engine instances processed the same number of records. It is also possible to acquire this information using the UNIX curl command and a REST call.
Each model processed the same number of records and all window counts match. This is what we expected. One last thing to check is to review the file containing the events from the Aggregate24HR window using the subscribe adapter.
Of course we want to ensure that processing continues if one of the XML servers fail. Therefore the previous test is repeated and the active XML server was terminated in the middle of processing events. In this case the active XML server, running on the Red Hat machine, was terminated by using the Ctrl-C interrupt. As expected ESP Studio issued a message that it can no longer communicate with the XML server.
Notice that several queues associated with the terminated XML server have also been removed, but the subscriber output queue is still delivering messages to the adapter.
A quick way to confirm that the Windows XML server transitioned to the active server is review the network traffic associated with the Windows machine. The screen shot below shows the host traffic received when events started flowing through the Windows engine. The received traffic, ~20MB/sec, represents the events retrieved from the publish queue (i.e. input to the model). After the failover occurs, you can see that sent traffic spikes to ~18MB/sec, which represents the traffic sent from the connector on Windows to the queue on Linux.
A check of the subscriber file created by the file and socket adapter shows that it has been replaced. The size is the same as the file created when no failover scenario was created.
Although not shown here, the first output file was renamed and Linux diff command was used to compare to the one created in the failover scenario. The results indicated the files are identical. As a result, we have a successful failover.
The same test was repeated and an active Windows XML server was terminated. This scenario produced the same result. The model on the Red Hat engine continued to run and the adapter on the Red Hat machine continued to write events to the CSV file.
In this blog we introduced the basics of SAS ESP failover using RabbitMQ as the message bus and performed a simple failover test. Hopefully it has successfully introduced the prerequisites for installing and configuring RabbitMQ as well as establishing a failover SAS ESP environment on multiple hosts. In most if not all cases the ESP hosts will reside on the same operating system. By testing in our homegrown virtual environment it has been proven that failover also works in a heterogeneous environment.
Please note that this testing was performed with SAS ESP 3.2, but the same holds true for subsequent ESP versions. Also note that SAS ESP 4.1 and 4.2 are not supported on Windows. Support for Windows was reintroduced in SAS ESP 4.3.