Skip to main content

Scaling Unit - Why we should not have a master unit

In the last post we talk about the base concept of a Scale Units. In today post we will go further and talk about why we can end up with different types of scale units based on application needs.
Until now we defined a scale unit as a group of resources that are grouped together to server a specific number of clients.
This will work with success for application that can have scale units that are 100% independent and are not managed by an authority.
Let’s imagine the following scenario:
We need to create an application that pushes the same binary content to clients when an administrator decide.

It is pretty simple to define a scale unit that manage a X number of clients. This scale unit will contain the content that needs to be pushed to clients replicated as many as time needs to satisfy the SLA required by each client connected to that scale unit.

But there are some steps that need to be done before a release of a binary content can be done. For example we need to be sure that the binary content was downloaded with success by all scaling units. Also, we need to be able to control from only one point the release of a specific binary content.
If all this are not enough, when a client needs to be registered into the system, he will know an initial registration endpoint that will need to help him to find the scaling unit that will manage him.
Based on this requirement, we can already identify another type of scaling unit that will need to handle this functionality. Let’s call this scaling unit “Global Unit” – GU. The scaling units that handle our clients can be called “Client Unit” – CU.
The Global Unit will be aware all the time about the rest of the Client Units and will need to manage and communicate with each scaling unit.

This approach can be risky, because Global Unit can become a bottle neck. In case something goes wrong on it we will not be able anymore to trigger a global push of a binary content. Scaling a Global Unit is not an easy job, because it is the master controlling unit over the rest of our scaling units. We can have an Active-Active or Active-Passive failover mechanism at Global Unit, but it will be a hard thing to do because we’ll need to replicate content and storage between Active and the Passive (Active) unit (We will talk more about Active-Active and Active-Passive topic in another posts).
This is a risk that we need to accept if we will go on an approach with a Global Unit that manage and control Client Units.
It is important to know that not all the systems needs a Global Unit that control different commands over all Client Units - like a binary content release or redirect clients at the first handshake to their Client Unit. 
In general I would try to make everything that is possible to avoid having a Global Unit.

Our main scope should be to define scaling units that don’t have any kind of contact or shared resources between them or a 'master' unit. In this way scaling, management and control can be made clean and easily.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How to check in AngularJS if a service was register or not

There are cases when you need to check in a service or a controller was register in AngularJS.
For example a valid use case is when you have the same implementation running on multiple application. In this case, you may want to intercept the HTTP provider and add a custom step there. This step don’t needs to run on all the application, only in the one where the service exist and register.
A solution for this case would be to have a flag in the configuration that specify this. In the core you would have an IF that would check the value of this flag.
Another solution is to check if a specific service was register in AngularJS or not. If the service was register that you would execute your own logic.
To check if a service was register or not in AngularJS container you need to call the ‘has’ method of ‘inhector’. It will return TRUE if the service was register.
if ($injector.has('httpInterceptorService')) { $httpProvider.interceptors.push('httpInterceptorService&#…

ADO.NET provider with invariant name 'System.Data.SqlClient' could not be loaded

Today blog post will be started with the following error when running DB tests on the CI machine:
threw exception: System.InvalidOperationException: The Entity Framework provider type 'System.Data.Entity.SqlServer.SqlProviderServices, EntityFramework.SqlServer' registered in the application config file for the ADO.NET provider with invariant name 'System.Data.SqlClient' could not be loaded. Make sure that the assembly-qualified name is used and that the assembly is available to the running application. See http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=260882 for more information. at System.Data.Entity.Infrastructure.DependencyResolution.ProviderServicesFactory.GetInstance(String providerTypeName, String providerInvariantName) This error happened only on the Continuous Integration machine. On the devs machines, everything has fine. The classic problem – on my machine it’s working. The CI has the following configuration:

TeamCity.NET 4.51EF 6.0.2VS2013
It seems that there …

Run native .NET application in Docker (.NET Framework 4.6.2)

Scope
The main scope of this post is to see how we can run a legacy application written in .NET Framework in Docker.

Context
First of all, let’s define what is a legacy application in our context. By a legacy application we understand an application that runs .NET Framework 3.5 or higher in a production environment where we don’t have any more the people or documentation that would help us to understand what is happening behind the scene.
In this scenarios, you might want to migrate the current solution from a standard environment to Docker. There are many advantages for such a migration, like:

Continuous DeploymentTestingIsolationSecurity at container levelVersioning ControlEnvironment Standardization
Until now, we didn’t had the possibility to run a .NET application in Docker. With .NET Core, there was support for .NET Core in Docker, but migration from a full .NET framework to .NET Core can be costly and even impossible. Not only because of lack of features, but also because once you…