Distributing Akka Workloads - and Shutting Down Afterwards

| Comments

Recently, as part of my role with the Professional Services team at Typesafe, I have been working on site at a customer who is using a lot of Akka and Play. During this time, I’ve gotten a chance to solve some interesting problems and answer obscure questions… which for those who like chasing these kinds of puzzles issues (like myself) is a fantastic way to spend the day (and if this kind of thing sounds exciting to you, we’re aggressively hiring for this kind of work ;) )

One item in particular came up recently as we tried to create a cron-style job to do interval data processing – big blocks of input data would be separated into individual instructions for processing, using Akka 2.0.x. The developer I was working with found that, among other things, using only a single actor to process all of their data items was not particularly performant. Further, once we solved this problem we couldn’t figure out how to cleanly shut down Akka without interrupting any messages being processed. Fortunately, Akka offers simple answers to both of these problems… if you know where to look.

By their nature, an Actor has a mailbox queueing all of the instructions sent to it, in order, and processes these messages one by one. In short, an individual actor is sequential, not parallel – performance is linear as we add more messages.

 1 package net.evilmonkeylabs.demo
 2 
 3 import akka.actor.{ActorSystem, Actor, Props}
 4 import akka.event.Logging
 5 
 6 case class Message(msg: String)
 7 
 8 class SimpleActor extends Actor {
 9   val log = Logging(context.system, this)
10 
11   def receive = {
12     case Message(msg) => log.info("Got a valid message: %s".format(msg))
13     case default => log.error("Got a message I don't understand.")
14   }
15 }
16 
17 object SimpleMain extends App {
18   val system = ActorSystem("SimpleSystem")
19   val simpleActor = system.actorOf(Props[SimpleActor], name = "simple")
20 
21   simpleActor ! Message("Hello, Akka!") // toss a message into our actor with the "!" send op
22 }

The obvious answer here is to spin up a pool of identical actors, all sharing the workload. While I seem to recall having to do a lot of custom work back in the early days of Pre-1.0 Akka, this is now tremendously easy to accomplish in Akka 2.0+, by the magic of Akka Routing.

You may ask, just what is a Router in Akka? In simple terms, a Router is an Actor which proxies (and by its nature, supervises) the mailbox for one or more child actors (Which I’ll refer to as ‘Routees’ where possible), and routes messages to them with custom behavior. Akka provides a number of predefined Routers, and most of these are designed to have many child actors (aka ‘routees’) and forward a single inbound message to only one of these routees – though there are also several Routers which broadcast to all, including the very useful ScatterGatherFirstCompletedRouter (the use of which I’ll cover in a future post).

In our case, what we wanted was several copies of the same actor, working together, but with a given message processed only once – so we aren’t worried about Broadcast style routers for now. For this kind of task, there are two built-in router types that I would reach for personally: RoundRobinRouter, and SmallestMailboxRouter. The astute reader may also note the existence of a RandomRouter – but my background makes me somewhat wary of Random distribution of workload due to fear of hot spotting.

The RoundRobinRouter and SmallestMailboxRouter are well suited for our needs here, so let’s look at those. RoundRobinRouter sends the messages one by one through the list of routees – A, B, C, D then A, B, C, D again and so on. By contrasts, the SmallestMailboxRouter routes messages to the routee with the least messages currently in its queue, so that if one is running faster than others for some reason he can do some extra work. While this behavior is admirable for a more complex system, let’s keep things simple in our example. We’re going to use the RoundRobinRouter for these examples, as it gives us some predictable & well defined behavior to work with. Spinning up a router on top of an actor – and having it automatically spin up duplicates of that actor to route to - is a fairly straightforward process in Akka. We can leave our existing SimpleActor in place, and just change how we set it up.

 1 import akka.routing.RoundRobinRouter
 2 
 3 
 4 object SimpleRouterSetup extends App {
 5   val system = ActorSystem("SimpleSystem")
 6   val simpleRouted = system.actorOf(Props[SimpleActor].withRouter(
 7                         RoundRobinRouter(nrOfInstances = 10)
 8                      ), name = "simpleRoutedActor")
 9 
10   for (n <- 1 until 10)  simpleRouted ! Message("Hello, Akka #%d!".format(n))
11 }

Note the addition of a call to the withRouter() method on our Props[ActorName] declaration. Where a normal Props[ActorName] call sets up a single Actor, withRouter() will return us a Router with nrOfInstances child actors. Here, we’ve setup a RoundRobinRouter with 10 routees; if we look at the output of running this new SimpleRouterSetup, we’ll see our log entries have several different actor IDs in them:

[INFO] [01/17/2013 15:32:51.897] [SimpleSystem-akka.actor.default-dispatcher-7] [akka://SimpleSystem/user/simpleRoutedActor/$f] Got a valid message: Hello, Akka #6!
[INFO] [01/17/2013 15:32:51.900] [SimpleSystem-akka.actor.default-dispatcher-8] [akka://SimpleSystem/user/simpleRoutedActor/$e] Got a valid message: Hello, Akka #5!
[INFO] [01/17/2013 15:32:51.900] [SimpleSystem-akka.actor.default-dispatcher-13] [akka://SimpleSystem/user/simpleRoutedActor/$d] Got a valid message: Hello, Akka #4!

With the previous example, we were very specific in our setup code – hardcoding the type of router we want as well as the number of routee actor instances. Hardcoding is rarely a good idea, and as such Akka also offers an easy way to make this externally configurable. We can change our router instantiation to read from the config instead:

 1 import akka.routing.{FromConfig, RoundRobinRouter}
 2 
 3 
 4 object SimpleFileConfiggedRouterSetup extends App {
 5   val system = ActorSystem("SimpleSystem")
 6   val simpleRouted = system.actorOf(Props[SimpleActor].withRouter(FromConfig()),
 7                                     name = "simpleRoutedActor")
 8 
 9   for (n <- 1 until 10)  simpleRouted ! Message("Hello, Akka #%d!".format(n))
10 }

We’ve replaced our explicit instantiation of a RoundRobinRouter here with a call to FromConfig(), which tells Akka to find a matching configuration entry with the router setup details. From here, we then just need to add an entry to our Akka configuration, in the deployment block, with the name we gave our Router:

deployment {
	/simpleRoutedActor {
		router = round-robin
		nr-of-instances = 5
	} 
}

Now we have an instance of RoundRobinRouter, spinning up and managing 5 identical copies of our SimpleActor – and we can swap out the router type or even raise & lower the number of routees easily from our configuration. From our standpoint as a programmer, the ActorRef we get back from our router initialization is fairly transparent – messages we send to it get routed automatically to a routee, and replies can come back from those actors as well. This behavior is a boon for us, as it means we can begin sending messages to the router without worrying about any special instructions.

Great! We now have a system for distributing our load. If we were feeling particularly adventurous, we could even combine routers with remote actors… but that’s a different post, for another day.

Cleaning Up After Ourselves

Here’s the part where we once again got stuck. Because we were building a cron job that was meant to run every once in awhile, do its work and then shut down, we found ourselves at odds with Akka’s behavior. In order to enable it to run as a daemon and run over long periods of time processing messages at potentially unreliable intervals, Akka’s ActorSystem starts up a pool of threads. This ActorSystem and its threads continue running – even after our main method completes and we expect exit. For many types of applications this is ideal, as we want to run continuously; for a cron job however, we want to shut down when our work is done.

The first thought you have might be “Well, just throw in a System.exit() call!”. Lest we forget, Actors are worked with asynchronously - we are not blocking while we wait for their actions to complete. We can demonstrate that quickly with a block of code to interact with our Actors. Let’s have our Actors print a message when they receive it, but also print as soon as our loop that sends messages to the actors completes.

1 for (n <- 1 until 100)  simpleRouted ! Message("Hello, Akka #%d!".format(n))
2 
3 System.err.println("Finished sending messages to Router.")

You might have expected a more sequential behavior out of this code, where everything went in order, such as:

Got a valid message: Hello, Akka #2
Got a valid message: Hello, Akka #3
Got a valid message: Hello, Akka #4
	...
Got a valid message: Hello, Akka #98
Got a valid message: Hello, Akka #99
Got a valid message: Hello, Akka #100
Finished sending messages to Router.

Unfortunately, things don’t work quite this way – the invocation to send a message to an Actor is asynchronous and returns immediately, not waiting for the Actor to process our message. Which means we probably saw our “Finished Sending” notification well before all of “Got a valid message” printouts. Herein lies our problem – if we force a System.exit() as soon as all of our messages are sent, we will shut down before the processing is done (especially if we are doing something involved like a database operation inside the actor).

Similarly, if instead of System.exit, we were force the ActorSystem to shutdown, we would hit a problem. When the ActorSystem is shut off, Akka will not wait for all queued messages to be processed, and instead begins shutting all Actors down as soon as they finish their current message. Despite our progress with routers, this shutdown behavior is less than ideal for our purposes. Thankfully, there is a solution - but first, let’s step back and take a quick look at how we shut down a single actor.

Poisoning Actors (No, not Wallace Shawn)

In order to facilitate the concept of “Finish what you are doing, and then shut down” with Actors, Akka offers akka.actor.PoisonPill. As a baked in, default behavior, all Akka Actors will automatically handle a PoisonPill message as an instruction to shut down. To use a PoisonPill, we send it to the actor like any other message. Because of this, it will enter the Actor’s mailbox and only be processed when it is dequeued. So if we load 10,000 “Do a task” messages to an Actor and then send a PoisonPill, we can rightly expect our tasks to complete before the Actor shuts down. This behavior is baked into the default receive handler of all Akka Actors:

case PoisonPill                self.stop()

Let’s take a brief look at what happens when we use this PoisonPill with a single Actor, before taking a look at Routers:

 1 import akka.actor.PoisonPill 
 2 
 3 object SimplePoisoner extends App {
 4   val system = ActorSystem("SimpleSystem")
 5   val simpleActor = system.actorOf(Props[SimpleActor], name = "simple")
 6 
 7   simpleActor ! Message("Hello, Akka!")
 8   simpleActor ! PoisonPill
 9   simpleActor ! Message("Boy, that was some tasty arsenic!")
10 }

If we run this code, we’ll note that after the PoisonPill is sent additional messages sent to the actor disappear, as the target Actor has gone away. But what would happen if we tried this with Routers in play?

Unfortunately, when sent to a Router, PoisonPill behaves quite differently from many users’ expectations – as it is treated differently than normal messages to a router. Because of the way that default “Handle a PoisonPill” behavior is baked into all Actors (of which Routers are), Routers do not forward a PoisonPill to their routees, but instead take it as an instruction directed at themselves.

This behavior can be surprising at first, especially because shutting an Actor down also shuts down all of its children, allowing the children only to continue processing their current message. Again, we find behavior contrary to what we might want.

Broadcasting to Akka Routers

Still determined to solve our shutdown problem, what we want to try now is ask each Actor that is routed to shut itself down after its entire queue is processed. A nice side effect of this is that when all of a Router’s children shut down, the Router shuts itself down too. While the Routers we are currently using only route a message to a single Actor, it is possible to broadcast a message to all routees - using a special case class akka.routing.Broadcast. When a Router receives a Broadcast, it unwraps the message contained within and forwards that message to every Actor it is routing for.

1 import akka.routing.Broadcast
2 
3 simpleRouter ! Broadcast(Message("I will not buy this record, it is scratched!"))

When running this code, we will see every actor in our Router setup repeat the message, “I will not buy this record, it is scratched!”. Because the Router does not look at the message being broadcast once unwrapped, his trick works effectively for our task:

1 for (n <- 1 until 10)  simpleRouter ! Message("Hello, Akka #%d!".format(n))
2 simpleRouter ! Broadcast(PoisonPill)
3 simpleRouter ! Message("Hello? You're looking a little green around the gills...") // never gets read

Great! Our Actors are now getting a correct command to shutdown, and allowing the Router above them to shut down gracefully too. We have timed this messaging to allow our full workload to complete before the shutdown, as well.

But… there’s one more problem. If we look at our last block of code and run it, you might notice that the program does not shut down. This is because the ActorSystem remains running, and will not automatically shut itself down. We must instruct it to do so, but now we are back to our original problem – timing.

The best way that I have found to handle this problem is to take advantage of Akka’s Lifecycle Monitoring, which allows us to create an actor who listens for notices that Actors have terminated. We need merely notify Akka that we’d like to hear about Terminations of a particular actor, and begin listening for those notices.

Since Akka will automatically shut down a Router when all of its routees have terminated, we should (rightly) expect a “Router Terminated” event soon after broadcasting a PoisonPill to our routees.

Here’s a rough sketch of an “Overwatch” actor, who asks for Akka to watch two other actors (One our router, the other a simple actor we won’t shutdown for), and when it sees the Router terminate, shuts down the ActorSystem:

 1 class SystemKillingRouterOverwatch extends Actor {
 2   val log = Logging(context.system, this)
 3 
 4   val simpleRouter = context.actorOf(Props[SimpleActor].withRouter(FromConfig()),
 5                                      name = "simpleRoutedActor")
 6 
 7   val simpleActor = context.actorOf(Props[SimpleActor], name = "simpleActor")
 8 
 9   // Setup our other two actors, so we supervise
10   context.watch(simpleRouter)
11   context.watch(simpleActor)
12 
13   def receive = {
14     case Terminated(corpse) =>
15       if (corpse == simpleRouter) {
16         log.warning("Received termination notification for '" + corpse + "'," +
17           "is in our watch list. Terminating ActorSystem.")
18         RoutedPoisonerWithShutdown.system.shutdown()
19       } else {
20         log.info("Received termination notification for '" + corpse + "'," +
21           "which is not in our deathwatch list.".format(corpse))
22       }
23   }

During the startup of the Actor , we setup our other two actors (automatically making us their supervisor) and ask for Akka to watch() them. In the case that we see a Terminated message, which will contain an ActorRef, we compare the corpse’s body; if it is the Router, we shutdown the ActorSystem. If not, we can keep on going.

Within the SystemKillingRouterOverwatch, below receive(), we’ve also added code to run through the test routines, which are just a tweak of what we’ve been building already, including poisoning an extra Actor to test termination:

 1 def receive = // ... 
 2 
 3 simpleRouter ! Broadcast(Message("I will not buy this record, it is scratched!"))
 4 
 5 simpleActor ! Message("If there's any more stock film of women applauding, I'll clear the court.")
 6 
 7 simpleActor ! PoisonPill
 8 
 9 for (n <- 1 until 10) simpleRouter ! Message("Hello, Akka #%d!".format(n))
10 simpleRouter ! Broadcast(PoisonPill)
11 simpleRouter ! Message("Hello? You're looking a little green around the gills...") // never gets read
12 }

The body of our main method is now just a startup of our ActorSystem and the overwatch actor

1 object RoutedPoisonerWithShutdown extends App {
2   val system = ActorSystem("SimpleSystem")
3   val overwatch = system.actorOf(Props[SystemKillingRouterOverwatch], name="overwatch")
4 
5 }

Running this code, we’ll see a notification that simpleActor terminated and we didn’t care, followed by simpleRoutedActor terminating – to which we respond by shutting down the ActorSystem!

That’s it; with a little basic knowledge we can now not only distribute our Akka workloads, but shut the system down cleanly when we are done with it!

If you’re interested in taking a closer look, I threw up a repository in Github with all of the code from this post

Comments