Tag Archives: Design Patterns

Distributed Systems Design Pattern: Two-Phase Commit (2PC) for Transaction Consistency [Banking…

Leave a reply

The Two-Phase Commit (2PC) protocol is a fundamental distributed systems design pattern that ensures atomicity in transactions across multiple nodes. It enables consistent updates in distributed databases, even in the presence of node failures, by coordinating between participants using a coordinator node.

In this article, we’ll explore how 2PC works, its application in banking systems, and its practical trade-offs, focusing on the use case of multi-account money transfers.

The Problem:

In distributed databases, transactions involving multiple nodes can face challenges in ensuring consistency. For example:

  • Partial Updates: One node completes the transaction, while another fails, leaving the system in an inconsistent state.
  • Network Failures: Delays or lost messages can disrupt the transaction’s atomicity.
  • Concurrency Issues: Simultaneous transactions might violate business constraints, like overdrawing an account.

Example Problem Scenario

In a banking system, transferring $1,000 from Account A (Node 1) to Account B (Node 2) requires both accounts to remain consistent. If Node 1 successfully debits Account A but Node 2 fails to credit Account B, the system ends up with inconsistent account balances, violating atomicity.

Two-Phase Commit Protocol: How It Works

The Two-Phase Commit Protocol addresses these issues by ensuring that all participating nodes either commit or abort a transaction together. It achieves this in two distinct phases:

Phase 1: Prepare

  1. The Transaction Coordinator sends a “Prepare” request to all participating nodes.
  2. Each node validates the transaction (e.g., checking constraints like sufficient balance).
  3. Nodes respond with either a “Yes” (ready to commit) or “No” (abort).

Phase 2: Commit or Abort

  1. If all nodes vote “Yes,” the coordinator sends a “Commit” message, and all nodes apply the transaction.
  2. If any node votes “No,” the coordinator sends an “Abort” message, rolling back any changes.
The diagram illustrates the Two-Phase Commit (2PC) protocol, ensuring transaction consistency across distributed systems. In the Prepare Phase, the Transaction Coordinator gathers validation responses from participant nodes. If all nodes validate successfully (“Yes” votes), the transaction moves to the Commit Phase, where changes are committed across all nodes. If any node fails validation (“No” vote), the transaction is aborted, and changes are rolled back to maintain consistency and atomicity. This process guarantees a coordinated outcome, either committing or aborting the transaction uniformly across all nodes.

Problem Context

Let’s revisit the banking use case:

Prepare Phase:

  • Node 1 prepares to debit $1,000 from Account A and logs the operation.
  • Node 2 prepares to credit $1,000 to Account B and logs the operation.
  • Both nodes validate constraints (e.g., ensuring sufficient balance in Account A).

Commit Phase:

  • If both nodes respond positively, the coordinator instructs them to commit.
  • If either node fails validation, the transaction is aborted, and any changes are rolled back.

Fault Recovery in Two-Phase Commit

What happens when failures occur?

  • If a participant node crashes during the Prepare Phase, the coordinator aborts the transaction.
  • If the coordinator crashes after sending a “Prepare” message but before deciding to commit or abort, the nodes enter an uncertain state until the coordinator recovers.
  • A Replication Log ensures that the coordinator’s decision can be recovered and replayed after a crash.

Practical Considerations and Trade-Offs

Advantages:

  1. Strong Consistency: Ensures all-or-nothing outcomes for transactions.
  2. Coordination: Maintains atomicity across distributed nodes.
  3. Error Handling: Logs allow recovery after failures.

Challenges:

  1. Blocking: Nodes remain in uncertain states if the coordinator crashes.
  2. Network Overhead: Requires multiple message exchanges.
  3. Latency: Transaction delays due to prepare and commit phases.

The Two-Phase Commit Protocol is a robust solution for achieving transactional consistency in distributed systems. It ensures atomicity and consistency, making it ideal for critical applications like banking, where even minor inconsistencies can have significant consequences.

By coordinating between participant nodes and enforcing consensus, 2PC eliminates the risk of partial updates, providing a foundation for reliable distributed transactions.

Thank you for being a part of the community

Before you go:

Distributed Systems Design Pattern: Write-Through Cache with Coherence — [Real-Time Sports Data…

Leave a reply
The diagram illustrates the Write-Through Cache with Coherence pattern for real-time sports data. When a user request is received for live scores, the update is written synchronously to Cache Node A and the Database (ensuring consistent updates). Cache Node A triggers an update propagation to other cache nodes (Cache Node B and Cache Node C) to maintain cache coherence. Acknowledgments confirm the updates, allowing all nodes to serve the latest data to users with minimal latency. This approach ensures fresh and consistent live sports data across all cache nodes.

In real-time sports data broadcasting systems, ensuring that users receive the latest updates with minimal delay is critical. Whether it’s live scores, player statistics, or game events, millions of users rely on accurate and up-to-date information. The Write-Through Cache with Coherence pattern ensures that the cache remains consistent with the underlying data store, reducing latency while delivering the latest data to users.

The Problem: Data Staleness and Latency in Sports Broadcasting

In a sports data broadcasting system, live updates (such as goals scored, fouls, or match times) are ingested, processed, and sent to millions of end-users. To improve response times, this data is cached across multiple distributed nodes. However, two key challenges arise:

  1. Stale Data: If updates are written only to the database and asynchronously propagated to the cache, there is a risk of stale data being served to end users.
  2. Cache Coherence: Maintaining consistent data across all caches is difficult when multiple nodes are involved in serving live requests.
The diagram illustrates the issue of data staleness and delayed updates in a sports broadcasting system. When a sports fan sends the 1st request, Cache Node A responds with a stale score (1–0) due to pending updates. On the 2nd request, Cache Node B responds with the latest score (2–0) after receiving the latest update propagated from the database. The delay in updating Cache Node A highlights the inconsistency caused by asynchronous update propagation.

Example Problem Scenario:
Consider a live soccer match where Node A receives a “Goal Scored” update and writes it to the database but delays propagating the update to its cache. Node B, which serves a user request, still shows the old score because its cache is stale. This inconsistency degrades the user experience and erodes trust in the system.

Write-Through Cache with Coherence

The Write-Through Cache pattern solves the problem of stale data by writing updates simultaneously to both the cache and the underlying data store. Coupled with a coherence mechanism, the system ensures that all cache nodes remain synchronized.

Here’s how it works:

  1. Write-Through Mechanism:
  • When an update (e.g., “Goal Scored”) is received, it is written to the cache and the database in a single operation.
  • The cache always holds the latest version of the data, eliminating the risk of stale reads.

2. Cache Coherence:

  • A coherence protocol propagates updates to all other cache nodes. This ensures that every node serves consistent data.
  • For example, when Node A updates its cache, it notifies Nodes B and C to invalidate or update their caches.

Implementation Steps [High Level]

Step 1: Data Ingestion

  • Real-time updates (e.g., goals, statistics) are received via an event stream (e.g., Kafka).

Step 2: Write-Through Updates

The diagram illustrates the Write-Through Cache Mechanism for live sports updates. When the Live Sports Feed sends a New Goal Update (2–0), the update is synchronously written to the Database and reflected in Cache Node A. The database confirms the update, and an acknowledgment is sent back to the Live Sports Feed to confirm success. This ensures that the cache and database remain consistent, enabling reliable and up-to-date data for users.
  • Updates are written synchronously to both the cache and the database to ensure immediate consistency.

Step 3: Cache Coherence

The diagram illustrates Cache Coherence Propagation across distributed cache nodes. Cache Node A propagates a Goal Update (2–0) to Cache Node B and Cache Node C. Both nodes acknowledge the update, ensuring all cache nodes remain synchronized. This process guarantees cache coherence, enabling consistent and up-to-date data across the distributed system.
  • The cache nodes propagate the update or invalidation signal to all other nodes, ensuring coherence.

Step 4: Serving Requests

The diagram demonstrates serving fresh live scores to users using synchronized cache nodes. A Sports Fan requests the live score from Cache Node A and Cache Node B. Both nodes respond with the fresh score (2–0), ensuring data consistency and synchronization. Notes highlight that the data is up-to-date in Cache Node A and propagated successfully to Cache Node B, showcasing efficient cache coherence.
  • User requests are served from the cache, which now holds the latest data.

Advantages of Write-Through Cache with Coherence

  1. Data Consistency:
    Updates are written to the cache and database simultaneously, ensuring consistent data availability.
  2. Low Latency:
    Users receive live updates directly from the cache without waiting for the database query.
  3. Cache Coherence:
    Updates are propagated to all cache nodes, ensuring that every node serves the latest data.
  4. Scalability:
    The pattern scales well with distributed caches, making it ideal for systems handling high-frequency updates.

Practical Considerations and Trade-Offs

While the Write-Through Cache with Coherence pattern ensures consistency, there are trade-offs:

  • Latency in Writes: Writing updates to both the cache and database synchronously may slightly increase latency for write operations.
  • Network Overhead: Propagating coherence updates to all nodes incurs additional network costs.
  • Write Amplification: Each write operation results in two updates (cache + database).

In real-time sports broadcasting systems, this pattern ensures that live updates, such as goals or player stats, are consistently visible to all users. For example:

  • When a “Goal Scored” update is received, it is written to the cache and database simultaneously.
  • The update propagates to all cache nodes, ensuring that every user sees the latest score within milliseconds.
  • Fans tracking the match receive accurate and timely updates, enhancing their viewing experience.

In sports broadcasting, where every second counts, this pattern ensures that millions of users receive accurate, up-to-date information without delay. By synchronizing updates across cache nodes and the database, this design guarantees an exceptional user experience for live sports enthusiasts.

Thank you for being a part of the community

Before you go:

Distributed Systems Design Pattern: Lease-Based Coordination — [Stock Trading Data Consistency Use…

Leave a reply
An overview of the Lease-Based Coordination process: The Lease Coordinator manages the lease lifecycle, allowing one node to perform exclusive updates to the stock price data at a time.

The Lease-Based Coordination pattern offers an efficient mechanism to assign temporary control of a resource, such as stock price updates, to a single node. This approach prevents stale data and ensures that traders and algorithms always operate on consistent, real-time information.

The Problem: Ensuring Consistency and Freshness in Real-Time Trading

The diagram illustrates how uncoordinated updates across nodes lead to inconsistent stock prices ($100 at T1 and $95 at T2). The lack of synchronization results in conflicting values being served to the trader.

In a distributed stock trading environment, stock price data is replicated across multiple nodes to achieve high availability and low latency. However, this replication introduces challenges:

  • Stale Data Reads: Nodes might serve outdated price data to clients if updates are delayed or inconsistent across replicas.
  • Write Conflicts: Multiple nodes may attempt to update the same stock price simultaneously, leading to race conditions and inconsistent data.
  • High Availability Requirements: In trading systems, even a millisecond of downtime can lead to significant financial losses, making traditional locking mechanisms unsuitable due to latency overheads.

Example Problem Scenario:
Consider a stock trading platform where Node A and Node B replicate stock price data for high availability. If Node A updates the price of a stock but Node B serves an outdated value to a trader, it may lead to incorrect trades and financial loss. Additionally, simultaneous updates from multiple nodes can create inconsistencies in the price history, causing a loss of trust in the system.

Lease-Based Coordination

The diagram illustrates the lease-based coordination mechanism, where the Lease Coordinator grants a lease to Node A for exclusive updates. Node A notifies Node B of its ownership, ensuring consistent data updates.

The Lease-Based Coordination pattern addresses these challenges by granting temporary ownership (a lease) to a single node, allowing it to perform updates and serve data exclusively for the lease duration. Here’s how it works:

  1. Lease Assignment: A central coordinator assigns a lease to a node, granting it exclusive rights to update and serve a specific resource (e.g., stock prices) for a predefined time period.
  2. Lease Expiry: The lease has a strict expiration time, ensuring that if the node fails or becomes unresponsive, other nodes can take over after the lease expires.
  3. Renewal Mechanism: The node holding the lease must periodically renew it with the coordinator to maintain ownership. If it fails to renew, the lease is reassigned to another node.

This approach ensures that only the node with the active lease can update and serve data, maintaining consistency across the system.

Implementation: Lease-Based Coordination in Stock Trading

The diagram shows the lifecycle of a lease, starting with its assignment to Node A, renewal requests, and potential reassignment to Node B if Node A fails, ensuring consistent stock price updates.

Step 1: Centralized Lease Coordinator

A centralized service acts as the lease coordinator, managing the assignment and renewal of leases. For example, Node A requests a lease to update stock prices, and the coordinator grants it ownership for 5 seconds.

Step 2: Exclusive Updates

While the lease is active, Node A updates the stock price and serves consistent data to traders. Other nodes are restricted from making updates but can still read the data.

Step 3: Lease Renewal

Before the lease expires, Node A sends a renewal request to the coordinator. If Node A is healthy and responsive, the lease is extended. If not, the coordinator reassigns the lease to another node (e.g., Node B).

Step 4: Reassignment on Failure

If Node A fails or becomes unresponsive, the lease expires. The coordinator assigns a new lease to Node B, ensuring uninterrupted updates and data availability.

Practical Considerations and Trade-Offs

While Lease-Based Coordination provides significant benefits, there are trade-offs:

  • Clock Synchronization: Requires accurate clock synchronization between nodes to avoid premature or delayed lease expiry.
  • Latency Overhead: Frequent lease renewals can add slight latency to the system.
  • Single Point of Failure: A centralized lease coordinator introduces a potential bottleneck, though it can be mitigated with replication.

Stackademic 🎓

Thank you for reading until the end. Before you go:

Distributed Systems Design Pattern: Quorum-Based Reads & Writes — [Healthcare Records…

Leave a reply

The Quorum-Based Reads and Writes pattern is an essential solution in distributed systems for maintaining data consistency, particularly in situations where accuracy and reliability are vital. In these systems, quorum-based reads and writes ensure that data remains both available and consistent by requiring a majority consensus among nodes before any read or write operations are confirmed. This is especially important in healthcare, where patient records need to be synchronized across multiple locations. By using this pattern, healthcare providers can access the most up-to-date patient information at all times. The following article offers a detailed examination of how quorum-based reads and writes function, with a focus on the synchronization of healthcare records.

The Problem: Challenges of Ensuring Consistency in Distributed Healthcare Data

In a distributed healthcare environment, patient records are stored and accessed across multiple systems and locations, each maintaining its own local copy. Ensuring that patient information is consistent and reliable at all times is a significant challenge for the following reasons:

  • Data Inconsistency: Updates made to a patient record in one clinic may not immediately reflect at another clinic, leading to data discrepancies that can affect patient care.
  • High Availability Requirements: Healthcare providers need real-time access to patient records. A single point of failure must not disrupt data access, as it could compromise critical medical decisions.
  • Concurrency Issues: Patient records are frequently accessed and updated by multiple users and systems. Without a mechanism to handle simultaneous updates, conflicting data may appear.

Consider a patient who visits two different clinics in the same healthcare network within a single day. Each clinic independently updates the patient’s medical history, lab results, and prescriptions. Without a system to ensure these changes synchronize consistently, one clinic may show incomplete or outdated data, potentially leading to treatment errors or delays.

Quorum-Based Reads and Writes: Achieving Consistency with Majority-Based Consensus

This diagram illustrates the quorum requirements for both write (w=3) and read (r=3) operations in a distributed system with 5 replicas. It shows how a quorum-based system requires a minimum number of nodes (3 out of 5) to confirm a write or read operation, ensuring consistency across replicas. The Quorum-Based Reads and Writes pattern solves these consistency issues by requiring a majority-based consensus across nodes in the network before completing read or write operations. This ensures that every clinic accessing a patient’s data sees a consistent view. The key components of this solution include:

  • Quorum Requirements: A quorum is the minimum number of nodes that must confirm a read or write request for it to be considered valid. By configuring quorums for reads and writes, the system creates an overlap that ensures data is always synchronized, even if some nodes are temporarily unavailable.
  • Read and Write Quorums: The pattern introduces two thresholds, read quorum (R) and write quorum (W), which define how many nodes must confirm each operation. These values are chosen to create an intersection between read and write operations, ensuring that even in a distributed environment, any data read or written is consistent.

To maintain this consistency, the following condition must be met:

R + W > N, where N is the total number of nodes.

This condition ensures that any data read will always intersect with the latest write, preventing stale or inconsistent information across nodes. It guarantees that reads and writes always overlap, maintaining synchronized and up-to-date records across the network.

Implementation: Synchronizing Patient Records with a Quorum-Based Mechanism

In a healthcare system with multiple clinics (e.g., 5 nodes), here’s how quorum-based reads and writes are configured and executed:

Step 1: Configuring Quorums

  • Assume a setup with 5 nodes (N = 5). For this network, set the read quorum (R) to 3 and the write quorum (W) to 3. This configuration ensures that any operation (read or write) requires confirmation from at least three nodes, guaranteeing overlap between reads and writes.

Step 2: Write Operation

This diagram demonstrates the quorum-based write operation in a distributed healthcare system, where a client (such as a healthcare provider) sends a write request to update a patient’s record. The request is first received by Node 10, which then propagates it to Nodes 1, 3, and 6 to meet the required write quorum. Once these nodes acknowledge the update, Node 10 confirms the write as successful, ensuring the record is consistent across the network. This approach provides high availability and reliability, crucial for maintaining synchronized healthcare data.
  • When a healthcare provider updates a patient’s record at one clinic, the system sends the update to all 5 nodes, but only needs confirmation from a quorum of 3 to commit the change. This allows the system to proceed with the update even if up to 2 nodes are unavailable, ensuring high availability and resilience.

Step 3: Read Operation

This diagram illustrates the quorum-based read operation process. When Clinic B (Node 2) requests a patient’s record, it sends a read request to a quorum of nodes, including Nodes 1, 3, and 4. Each of these nodes responds with a confirmed record. Once the read quorum (R=3) is met, Clinic B displays a consistent and synchronized patient record to the user. This visual effectively demonstrates the quorum confirmation needed for consistent reads across a distributed network of healthcare clinics.
  • When a clinic requests a patient record, it retrieves data from a quorum of 3 nodes. If there are any discrepancies between nodes, the system reconciles differences and provides the most recent data. This guarantees that the clinic sees an accurate and synchronized patient record, even if some nodes lag slightly behind.

Quorum-Based Synchronization Across Clinics

This diagram provides an overview of the quorum-based system in a distributed healthcare environment. It shows how multiple clinics (Nodes 1 through 5) interact with the quorum-based system to maintain a consistent patient record across locations.

Advantages of Quorum-Based Reads and Writes

  1. Consistent Patient Records: By configuring a quorum that intersects read and write operations, patient data remains synchronized across all locations. This avoids discrepancies and ensures that every healthcare provider accesses the most recent data.
  2. Fault Tolerance: Since the system requires only a quorum of nodes to confirm each operation, it can continue functioning even if a few nodes fail or are temporarily unreachable. This redundancy is crucial for systems where data access cannot be interrupted.
  3. Optimized Performance: By allowing reads and writes to complete once a quorum is met (rather than waiting for all nodes), the system improves responsiveness without compromising data accuracy.

Practical Considerations and Trade-Offs

While quorum-based reads and writes offer significant benefits, some trade-offs are inherent to the approach:

  • Latency Impacts: Larger quorums may introduce slight delays, as more nodes must confirm each read and write.
  • Staleness Risk: If a read quorum doesn’t intersect with the latest write quorum, there’s a minor chance of reading outdated data.
  • Operational Complexity: Configuring optimal quorum values (R and W) for a system’s specific requirements can be challenging, especially when balancing high availability and low latency.

Eventual Consistency and Quorum-Based Synchronization

Quorum-based reads and writes support eventual consistency by ensuring that all updates eventually propagate to every node. This means that even if there’s a temporary delay, patient data will be consistent across all nodes within a short period. For healthcare systems spanning multiple regions, this approach maintains high availability while ensuring accuracy across all locations.

The Quorum-Based Reads and Writes pattern is a powerful approach to ensuring data consistency in distributed systems. For healthcare networks, this pattern provides a practical way to synchronize patient records across multiple locations, delivering accurate, reliable, and readily available information. By configuring read and write quorums, healthcare organizations can maintain data integrity and consistency, supporting better patient care and enhanced decision-making across their network.

Stackademic 🎓

Thank you for reading until the end. Before you go:

Distributed Systems Design Pattern: Request Waiting List [Capital Markets Use Case]

Leave a reply

Problem Statement:

In a distributed capital markets system, client requests like trade executions, settlement confirmations, and clearing operations must be replicated across multiple nodes for consistency and fault tolerance. Finalizing any operation requires confirmation from all nodes or a Majority Quorum.

For instance, when a trade is executed, multiple nodes (such as trading engines, clearing systems, and settlement systems) must confirm the transaction’s key details — such as the trade price, volume, and counterparty information. This multi-node confirmation ensures that the trade is valid and can proceed. These confirmations are critical to maintaining consistency across the distributed system, helping to prevent discrepancies that could result in financial risks, errors, or regulatory non-compliance.

However, asynchronous communication between nodes means responses arrive at different times, complicating the process of tracking requests and waiting for a quorum before proceeding with the operation.

“The following diagram illustrates the problem scenario, where client trade requests are propagated asynchronously across multiple nodes. Each node processes the request at different times, and the system must wait for a majority quorum of responses to proceed with the trade confirmation.”

Solution: Request Waiting List Distributed Design Pattern

The Request Waiting List pattern addresses the challenge of tracking client requests that require responses from multiple nodes asynchronously. It maintains a list of pending requests, with each request linked to a specific condition that must be met before the system responds to the client.

Definition:

The Request Waiting List pattern is a distributed system design pattern used to track client requests that require responses from multiple nodes asynchronously. It maintains a queue of pending requests, each associated with a condition or callback that triggers when the required criteria (such as a majority quorum of responses or a specific confirmation) are met. This ensures that operations are finalized consistently and efficiently, even in systems with asynchronous communication between nodes.

Application in Capital Markets Use Case:

“The flowchart illustrates the process of handling a trade request in a distributed capital markets system using the Request Waiting List pattern. The system tracks each request and waits for a majority quorum of responses before fulfilling the client’s trade request, ensuring consistency across nodes.”

1. Asynchronous Communication in Trade Execution:

  • When a client initiates a trade, the system replicates the trade details across multiple nodes (e.g., order matching systems, clearing systems, settlement systems).
  • These nodes communicate asynchronously, meaning that responses confirming trade details or executing the order may arrive at different times.

2. Tracking with a Request Waiting List:

  • The system keeps a waiting list that maps each trade request to a unique identifier, such as a trade ID or correlation ID.
  • Each request has an associated callback function that checks if the necessary conditions are fulfilled to proceed. For example, the callback may be triggered when confirmation is received from a specific node (such as the clearing system) or when a majority of nodes have confirmed the trade.

3. Majority Quorum for Trade Confirmation:

  • The system waits until a majority quorum of confirmations is received (e.g., more than half of the relevant nodes) before proceeding with the next step, such as executing the trade or notifying the client of the outcome.

4. Callback and High-Water Mark in Settlement:

  • In the case of settlement, the High-Water Mark represents the total number of confirmations required from settlement nodes before marking the transaction as complete.
  • Once the necessary conditions — such as price match and volume confirmation — are satisfied, the callback is invoked. The system then informs the client that the trade has been successfully executed or settled.

This approach ensures that client requests in capital markets systems are efficiently tracked and processed, even in the face of asynchronous communication. By leveraging a waiting list and majority quorum, the system ensures that critical operations like trade execution and settlement are handled accurately and consistently.

Stackademic 🎓

Thank you for reading until the end. Before you go:

Bulkhead Architecture Pattern: Data Security & Governance

Leave a reply

Today during an Azure learning session focused on data security and governance, our instructor had to leave unexpectedly due to a personal emergency. Reflecting on the discussion and drawing from my background in fintech and solution architecture, I believe it would be beneficial to explore an architecture pattern relevant to our conversation: the Bulkhead Architecture Pattern.

Inspired by ship design, the Bulkhead architecture pattern divides the base of a ship into partitions called bulkheads. This ensures that if there’s a leak in one section, it doesn’t sink the entire ship; only the affected partition fills with water. Translating this principle to software architecture, the pattern focuses on fault isolation by decomposing a monolithic architecture into a microservices architecture.

Use Case: Bank Reconciliation Reporting

Consider a scenario involving trade data across various regions such as APAC, EMEA, LATAM, and NAM. Given the regulatory challenges related to cross-country data movement, ensuring proper data governance when consolidating data in a data warehouse environment becomes crucial. Specifically, it is essential to manage the challenge of ensuring that data from India cannot be accessed from the NAM region and vice versa. Additionally, restricting data movement at the data centre level is critical.

Microservices Isolation

  • Microservices A, B, C: Each microservice is deployed in its own Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) cluster or Azure App Service.
  • Independent Databases: Each microservice uses a separate database instance, such as Azure SQL Database or Cosmos DB, to avoid single points of failure.

Network Isolation

  • Virtual Networks (VNets): Each microservice is deployed in its own VNet. Use Network Security Groups (NSGs) to control inbound and outbound traffic.
  • Private Endpoints: Secure access to Azure services (e.g., storage accounts, databases) using private endpoints.

Load Balancing and Traffic Management

  • Azure Front Door: Provides global load balancing and application acceleration for microservices.
  • Application Gateway: Offers application-level routing and web application firewall (WAF) capabilities.
  • Traffic Manager: A DNS-based traffic load balancer for distributing traffic across multiple regions.

Service Communication

  • Service Bus: Use Azure Service Bus for decoupled communication between microservices.
  • Event Grid: Event-driven architecture for handling events across microservices.

Fault Isolation and Circuit Breakers

  • Polly: Implement circuit breakers and retries within microservices to handle transient faults.
  • Azure Functions: Use serverless functions for non-critical, independently scalable tasks.

Data Partitioning and Isolation

  • Sharding: Partition data across multiple databases to improve performance and fault tolerance.
  • Data Sync: Use Azure Data Sync to replicate data across regions for redundancy.

Monitoring and Logging

  • Azure Monitor: Centralized monitoring for performance and availability metrics.
  • Application Insights: Deep application performance monitoring and diagnostics.
  • Log Analytics: Aggregated logging and querying for troubleshooting and analysis.

Advanced Threat Protection

  • Azure Defender for Storage: Enable Azure Defender for Storage to detect unusual and potentially harmful attempts to access or exploit storage accounts.

Key Points

  • Isolation: Each microservice and its database are isolated in separate clusters and databases.
  • Network Security: VNets and private endpoints ensure secure communication.
  • Resilience: Circuit breakers and retries handle transient faults.
  • Monitoring: Centralized monitoring and logging for visibility and diagnostics.
  • Scalability: Each component can be independently scaled based on load.

Bulkhead Pattern Concepts

Isolation

The primary goal of the Bulkhead pattern is to isolate different parts of a system to contain failures within a specific component, preventing them from cascading and affecting the entire system. This isolation can be achieved through various means such as separate thread pools, processes, or containers.

Fault Tolerance

By containing faults within isolated compartments, the Bulkhead pattern enhances the system’s ability to tolerate failures. If one component fails, the rest of the system can continue to operate normally, thereby improving overall reliability and stability.

Resource Management

The pattern helps in managing resources efficiently by allocating specific resources (like CPU, memory, and network bandwidth) to different components. This prevents resource contention and ensures that a failure in one component does not exhaust resources needed by other components.

Implementation Examples in K8s

Kubernetes

An example of implementing the Bulkhead pattern in Kubernetes involves creating isolated containers for different services, each with its own CPU and memory resources and limits. This configuration is for a service called payment-processing.

apiVersion: v1
kind: Pod
metadata:
  name: payment-processing
spec:
  containers:
  - name: payment-processing-container
    image: payment-service:latest
    resources:
      requests:
        memory: "128Mi"
        cpu: "500m"
      limits:
        memory: "256Mi"
        cpu: "2"
---
apiVersion: v1
kind: Pod
metadata:
  name: order-management
spec:
  containers:
  - name: order-management-container
    image: order-service:latest
    resources:
      requests:
        memory: "64Mi"
        cpu: "250m"
      limits:
        memory: "128Mi"
        cpu: "1"
---
apiVersion: v1
kind: Pod
metadata:
  name: inventory-control
spec:
  containers:
  - name: inventory-control-container
    image: inventory-service:latest
    resources:
      requests:
        memory: "96Mi"
        cpu: "300m"
      limits:
        memory: "192Mi"
        cpu: "1.5"

In this configuration:

  • The payment-processing service is allocated 128Mi of memory and 500m of CPU as a request, with limits set to 256Mi of memory and 2 CPUs.
  • The order-management service has its own isolated resources, with 64Mi of memory and 250m of CPU as a request, and limits set to 128Mi of memory and 1 CPU.
  • The inventory-control service is given 96Mi of memory and 300m of CPU as a request, with limits set to 192Mi of memory and 1.5 CPUs.

This setup ensures that each service operates within its own resource limits, preventing any single service from exhausting resources and affecting the others.

Hystrix

Hystrix, a Netflix API for latency and fault tolerance, uses the Bulkhead pattern to limit the number of concurrent calls to a component. This is achieved through thread isolation, where each component is assigned a separate thread pool, and semaphore isolation, where callers must acquire a permit before making a request. This prevents the entire system from becoming unresponsive if one component fails.

Ref: https://github.com/Netflix/Hystrix

AWS App Mesh

In AWS App Mesh, the Bulkhead pattern can be implemented at the service-mesh level. For example, in an e-commerce application with different API endpoints for reading and writing prices, resource-intensive write operations can be isolated from read operations by using separate resource pools. This prevents resource contention and ensures that read operations remain unaffected even if write operations experience a high load.

Benefits

  • Fault Containment: Isolates faults within specific components, preventing them from spreading and causing systemic failures.
  • Improved Resilience: Enhances the system’s ability to withstand unexpected failures and maintain stability.
  • Performance Optimization: Allocates resources more efficiently, avoiding bottlenecks and ensuring consistent performance.
  • Scalability: Allows independent scaling of different components based on workload demands.
  • Security Enhancement: Reduces the attack surface by isolating sensitive components, limiting the impact of security breaches.

The Bulkhead pattern is a critical design principle for constructing resilient, fault-tolerant, and efficient systems by isolating components and managing resources effectively.

Stackademic 🎓

Thank you for reading until the end. Before you go: