36 posts tagged with "availability"

Hypothesis​

The objective of this chaos day is to estimate the scalability of Zeebe when brokers and partitions are scaled together: we expect to be able to see the system scaling linearly with the number of brokers/partition in terms of throughput and back pressure, while maintaining predictable latency.

General Experiment setup​

To test this, we ran a benchmark using the latest alpha version of Camunda 8.8.0-alpha6, with the old ElasticsearchExporter disabled, and the new CamundaExporter enabled. We also made sure Raft leadership was balanced before starting the test, meaning each broker is leader for exactly one partition, and we turned on partition scaling by adding the following environment variable:

• ZEEBE_BROKER_EXPERIMENTAL_FEATURES_ENABLEPARTITIONSCALING=true

Each broker also has a SSD-class volume with 32GB of disk space, limiting them to a few thousand IOPS. The processing load was 150 processes per second, with a large payload of 32KiB each. Each process instance has a single service task:

The processing load is generated by our own benchmarking application.

Initial cluster configuration​

To test this hypothesis, we will start with a standard configuration of the Camunda orchestration cluster:

• 3 nodes
• 3 partitions
• CPU limit: 2
• Memory limit: 2 GB

We will increase the load through a load generator in fixed increments until we start to see the nodes showing constant non zero backpressure, which is a sign that the system has hit its throughput limits.

Target cluster configuration​

Once that level of throughput is increased, we will scale broker & partitions while the cluster is under load to the new target value:

• 6 nodes
• 6 partitions
• CPU limit: 2
• Memory limit: 2 GB

Experiment​

We expect that during the scaling operation the backpressure/latencies might worsen, but only temporarily, as once the scaling operation has completed, the additional load it generate is not present anymore.

Then, we will execute the same procedure as above, until we hit 2x the critical throughput hit before.

Expectation​

If the system scales linearly, we expect to see similar level of performance metrics for similar values of the ratios PI (created/complete) per second / nr. of partition.

Steady state​

The system is started with a throughput of 150 Process instances created per second. As this is a standard benchmark configuration, nothing unexpected happens:

• The same number of process instances are completed as the ones created
• The expected number of jobs is completed per unit of time

At this point, we have the following topology:

First benchmark: 3 broker and 3 partitions​

Let's start increasing the load incrementally, by adding 30 Process instances/s for every step.

At 240 Process Instances spawned per second, the system starts to hit the limits:

And the backpressure is not zero anymore:

• The CPU throttling reaches almost 90% on one node (this is probably caused by only one node being selected as gateway as previously noted)
• Backpressure is now constantly above zero, even if it's just 0.5%, it's a sign that we are reaching the throughput limits.

Second part of the benchmark: scaling to 6 brokers and 6 partitions​

With 240 process instances per second being spawned, we send the commands to scale the cluster.

We first scale the zeebe statefulset to 6 brokers. As soon as the new brokers are running, even before they are healthy, we can send the command to include them in the cluster and to increase the number of partition to 6.

This can be done following the guide in the official docs.

Once the scaling has been completed, as can be seen from the Cluster operation section in the dashboard, we see the newly created partitions participate in the workload.

We now have the following topology:

As we did before, let's start increasing the load incrementally as we did with the other cluster configuration.

However, at 11:32 one of the workers restarted, causing a spike in the processing due to jobs being yielded back to the engine, less jobs to be activated, and thus less to be completed. This caused a job backlog to build up in the engine. Once the worker restarted, the backlog was drained, leading to a spike in job completion requests: around 820 req/s, as opposed to the expected 420 req/s.

Because of this extra load, the cluster started to consume even more CPU, resulting in heavy CPU throttling from the cloud provider.

On top of this, eventually a broker restarted (most likely as we run on spot VMs). In order to continue with our test, we scaled the load down to 60 PI/s to give the cluster the time to heal.

Once the cluster was healthy again, we raised the throughput back to 480 PI/s to verify the scalability with twice as much throughput as the initial configuration.

The cluster was able to sustain 480 process instances per second with similar levels of backpressure of the initial configuration:

We can see below that CPU usage is high, and there is still some throttling, indicating we might be able to do more with a little bit of vertical scaling, or by scaling out and reducing the number of partitions per broker:

Conclusion​

We were able to verify that the cluster can scale almost linearly with new brokers and partitions, so long as the other components, like the secondary storage, workers, connectors, etc., are able to sustain a similar.

In particular, making sure that the secondary storage is able to keep up with the throughput turned out to be crucial to keep the cluster stable in order to avoid filling up the Zeebe disks, which would bring to a halt the cluster.

We encountered a similar issue when one worker restarts: initially it creates a backlog of unhandled jobs, which turns into a massive increase in requests per second when the worker comes back, as it starts activating jobs faster than the cluster can complete them.

Finally, with this specific test, it would be interesting to explore the limits of vertical scalability, as we often saw CPU throttling being a major blocker for processing. This would make for an interesting future experiment.

Investigating REST API performance​

This post collates the experiments, findings, and lessons learned during the REST API performance investigation.

There wasn't one explicit root cause identified. As it is often the case with such performance issues, it is the combination of several things.

Quint essence: REST API is more CPU intense/heavy than gRPC. You can read more about this in the conclusion part. We have discovered ~10 issues we have to follow up with, where at least 2-3 might have a significant impact in the performance. Details can be found in the Discovered issues section

In today's Chaos day we wanted to experiment with the new REST API (v2) as a replacement for our previous used gRPC API.

Per default, our load tests make use of the gRPC, but as we want to make REST API the default and release this fully with 8.8, we want to make sure to test this accordingly in regard to reliability.

TL;DR; We observed severe performance regression when using the REST API, even when job streaming is in use by the job workers (over gRPC). Our client seems to have a higher memory consumption, which caused some instabilities in our tests as well. With the new API, we lack certain observability, which makes it harder to dive into certain details. We should investigate this further and find potential bottlenecks and improvements.

This week, we (Lena, Nicolas, Roman, and I) held a workshop where we looked into how Zeebe behaves with network file storage (NFS).

We ran several experiments with NFS and Zeebe, and messing around with connectivity.

TL;DR; We were able to show that NFS can handle certain connectivity issues, just causing Zeebe to process slower. IF we completely lose the connection to the NFS server, several issues can arise, like IOExceptions on flush (where RAFT goes into inactive mode) or SIGBUS errors on reading (like replay), causing the JVM to crash.

I'm back to finally do some load testing again.

In the past months, we have changed our architecture. This was to deploy instead all of our components as a separate deployment, we now have one single statefulset. This statefulset is running our single Camunda standalone application, combining all components together.

More details on this change we will share on a separate blog post. For simplicity, in our load tests (benchmark helm charts), we combined all the resources we had split over multiple deployments together, see related PR #213.

We are currently running our test with the following resources by default:

    Limits:
      cpu:     2
      memory:  12Gi
    Requests:
      cpu:      2
      memory:   6Gi

In today's Chaos day, I want to look into our resource consumption and whether we can reduce our used requests and limits.

TL;DR; We have focused on experimenting with different memory resources, and were able to show that we can reduce the used memory by 75%, and our previous provisioned resources by more than 80% for our load tests.

In this Chaos day, we want to verify the current state of the exporter project and run benchmarks with it. Comparing with a previous version (v8.6.6) should give us a good hint on the current state and potential improvements.

TL;DR; The latency of user data availability has improved due to our architecture change, but we still need to fix some bugs before our planned release of the Camunda Exporter. This experiment allows us to detect three new bugs, fixing this should allow us to make the system more stable.

Zeebe 8.6 introduces a new unified flow control mechanism that is able to limit user commands (by default it tries to achieve 200ms response times) and rate limit writes of new records in general (disabled by default). Limiting the write rate is a new feature that can be used to prevent building up an excessive exporting backlog. There are two ways to limit the write rate, either by setting a static limit or by enabling throttling that dynamically adjust the write rate based on the exporting backlog and rate. In these experiments, we will test both ways of limiting the write rate and observe the effects on processing and exporting.

TL;DR; Both setting a static write rate limit and enabling throttling of the write rate can be used to prevent building up an excessive exporting backlog. For users, this will be seen as backpressure because processing speed is limited by the rate at which it can write processing results.

Zeebe 8.6 introduces a new unified flow control mechanism that is able to limit user commands (by default it tries to achieve 200ms response times) and rate limit writes of new records in general (disabled by default).

Limiting the write rate is a new feature that can be used to prevent building up an excessive exporting backlog.

In these experiments we will test what happens with the deployment of endless loops that result in high processing load, and how we can use the new flow control to keep the cluster stable.

TL;DR;

Enabling the write rate limiting can help mitigate the effects caused by process instances that contain uncontrolled loops by preventing building up an excessive exporting backlog.

With the addition of end-to-end job streaming capabilities in Zeebe, we wanted to measure the improvements in job activation latency:

• How much is a single job activation latency reduced?
• How much is the activation latency reduced between each task of the same process instance?
• How much is the activation latency reduced on large clusters with a high broker and partition count?

Additionally, we wanted to guarantee that every component involved in streaming, including clients, would remain resilient in the face of load surges.

TL;DR; Job activation latency is greatly reduced, with task based workloads seeing up to 50% reduced overall execution latency. Completing a task now immediately triggers pushing out the next one, meaning the latency to activate the next task in a sequence is bounded by how much time it takes to process its completion in Zeebe. Activation latency is unaffected by how many partitions or brokers there in a cluster, as opposed to job polling, thus ensuring scalability of the system. Finally, reuse of gRPC's flow control mechanism ensure clients cannot be overloaded even in the face of load surges, without impacting other workloads in the cluster.

Head over to the documentation to learn how to start using job push!

With Zeebe now supporting the addition and removal of brokers to a running cluster, we wanted to test three things:

1. Is there an impact on processing performance while scaling?
2. Is scaling resilient to high processing load?
3. Can scaling up improve processing performance?

TL;DR; Scaling up works even under high load and has low impact on processing performance. After scaling is complete, processing performance improves in both throughput and latency.