I did not check the link before. Sorry about that. Reading some of the pages there, I see curator more like a client library such as MySQL JDBC client.
When I mentioned framework, I was looking for something like Spring-data. So, we could simply rely on the framework to manage connections and transactions. For instance, we could define a pattern that would open connection with a read-only transaction. And then, we could annotate methods that would write in the database something with @Transactional(readonly = false). If we are going to a change like this we need to remove manually open connections and transactions. Also, we have to remove the transaction management code from our code base. I would like to see something like this [1] in our future. No manually written transaction code, and no transaction management in our code base. Just simple annotation usage or transaction pattern in Spring XML files. [1] https://github.com/rafaelweingartner/daily-tasks/blob/master/src/main/java/br/com/supero/desafio/services/TaskService.java On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 8:32 AM, Marc-Aurèle Brothier <ma...@exoscale.ch> wrote: > @rafael, yes there is a framework (curator), it's the link I posted in my > first message: https://curator.apache.org/curator-recipes/shared-lock.html > This framework helps handling all the complexity of ZK. > > The ZK client stays connected all the time (as the DB connection pool), and > only one connection (ZKClient) is needed to communicate with the ZK server. > The framework handles reconnection as well. > > Have a look at ehc curator website to understand its goal: > https://curator.apache.org/ > > On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 11:01 AM, Rafael Weingärtner < > rafaelweingart...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Do we have framework to do this kind of looking in ZK? > > I mean, you said " create a new InterProcessSemaphoreMutex which handles > > the locking mechanism.". This feels that we would have to continue > opening > > and closing this transaction manually, which is what causes a lot of our > > headaches with transactions (it is not MySQL locks fault entirely, but > our > > code structure). > > > > On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 7:47 AM, Marc-Aurèle Brothier <ma...@exoscale.ch > > > > wrote: > > > > > We added ZK lock for fix this issue but we will remove all current > locks > > in > > > ZK in favor of ZK one. The ZK lock is already encapsulated in a project > > > with an interface, but more work should be done to have a proper > > interface > > > for locks which could be implemented with the "tool" you want, either a > > DB > > > lock for simplicity, or ZK for more advanced scenarios. > > > > > > @Daan you will need to add the ZK libraries in CS and have a running ZK > > > server somewhere. The configuration value is read from the > > > server.properties. If the line is empty, the ZK client is not created > and > > > any lock request will immediately return (not holding any lock). > > > > > > @Rafael: ZK is pretty easy to setup and have running, as long as you > > don't > > > put too much data in it. Regarding our scenario here, with only locks, > > it's > > > easy. ZK would be only the gatekeeper to locks in the code, ensuring > that > > > multi JVM can request a true lock. > > > For the code point of view, you're opening a connection to a ZK node > (any > > > of a cluster) and you create a new InterProcessSemaphoreMutex which > > handles > > > the locking mechanism. > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 10:24 AM, Ivan Kudryavtsev < > > > kudryavtsev...@bw-sw.com > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Rafael, > > > > > > > > - It's easy to configure and run ZK either in single node or cluster > > > > - zookeeper should replace mysql locking mechanism used inside ACS > code > > > > (places where ACS locks tables or rows). > > > > > > > > I don't think from the other size, that moving from MySQL locks to ZK > > > locks > > > > is easy and light and (even implemetable) way. > > > > > > > > 2017-12-18 16:20 GMT+07:00 Rafael Weingärtner < > > > rafaelweingart...@gmail.com > > > > >: > > > > > > > > > How hard is it to configure Zookeeper and get everything up and > > > running? > > > > > BTW: what zookeeper would be managing? CloudStack management > servers > > or > > > > > MySQL nodes? > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 7:13 AM, Ivan Kudryavtsev < > > > > > kudryavtsev...@bw-sw.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, Marc-Aurele, I strongly believe that all mysql locks > should > > be > > > > > > removed in favour of truly DLM solution like Zookeeper. The > > > performance > > > > > of > > > > > > 3node ZK ensemble should be enough to hold up to 1000-2000 locks > > per > > > > > second > > > > > > and it helps to move to truly clustered MySQL like galera without > > > > single > > > > > > master server. > > > > > > > > > > > > 2017-12-18 15:33 GMT+07:00 Marc-Aurèle Brothier < > ma...@exoscale.ch > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I was wondering how many of you are running CloudStack with a > > > cluster > > > > > of > > > > > > > management servers. I would think most of you, but it would be > > nice > > > > to > > > > > > hear > > > > > > > everyone voices. And do you get hosts going over their capacity > > > > limits? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We discovered that during the VM allocation, if you get a lot > of > > > > > parallel > > > > > > > requests to create new VMs, most notably with large profiles, > the > > > > > > capacity > > > > > > > increase is done too far after the host capacity checks and > > results > > > > in > > > > > > > hosts going over their capacity limits. To detail the steps: > the > > > > > > deployment > > > > > > > planner checks for cluster/host capacity and pick up one > > deployment > > > > > plan > > > > > > > (zone, cluster, host). The plan is stored in the database > under a > > > > > VMwork > > > > > > > job and another thread picks that entry and starts the > > deployment, > > > > > > > increasing the host capacity and sending the commands. Here > > > there's a > > > > > > time > > > > > > > gap between the host being picked up and the capacity increase > > for > > > > that > > > > > > > host of a couple of seconds, which is well enough to go over > the > > > > > capacity > > > > > > > on one or more hosts. A few VMwork job can be added in the DB > > queue > > > > > > > targeting the same host before one gets picked up. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To fix this issue, we're using Zookeeper to act as the multi > JVM > > > lock > > > > > > > manager thanks to their curator library ( > > > > > > > https://curator.apache.org/curator-recipes/shared-lock.html). > We > > > > also > > > > > > > changed the time when the capacity is increased, which occurs > now > > > > > pretty > > > > > > > much after the deployment plan is found and inside the > zookeeper > > > > lock. > > > > > > This > > > > > > > ensure we don't go over the capacity of any host, and it has > been > > > > > proven > > > > > > > efficient since a month in our management server cluster. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This adds another potential requirement which should be discuss > > > > before > > > > > > > proposing a PR. Today the code works seamlessly without ZK too, > > to > > > > > ensure > > > > > > > it's not a hard requirement, for example in a lab. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Comments? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kind regards, > > > > > > > Marc-Aurèle > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > With best regards, Ivan Kudryavtsev > > > > > > Bitworks Software, Ltd. > > > > > > Cell: +7-923-414-1515 > > > > > > WWW: http://bitworks.software/ <http://bw-sw.com/> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Rafael Weingärtner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > With best regards, Ivan Kudryavtsev > > > > Bitworks Software, Ltd. > > > > Cell: +7-923-414-1515 > > > > WWW: http://bitworks.software/ <http://bw-sw.com/> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Rafael Weingärtner > > > -- Rafael Weingärtner
