10:04 a.m.
Let's say that a start-of-day, every day, we generate a giant 2,000+ rule .DRL, that
we then use to construct into a single run-time KnowledgeBase reference. We then
construct a single run-time KnowledgeSession reference (also at start of day). Throughout
the day, all day, facts "arrive" asynchronously into our expert system. When a
fact "arrives", we synchronously place the fact onto our single KS and call
.fireAllRules(), which in turn synchronously outputs answers that satisfy our
"what's the next step?" decision requirements.
We have this working very well, but we have the ambition to achieve more.
We want to attempt to scale this solution to accommodate the high-frequency simultaneous
"arrival" of many facts. We have at our disposal a 24xCPU 128 gb Linux-based
compute resource (nice, right?) ... so, ideally, we have the ambition to potentially
accommodate the simultaneous arrival of 24 facts into our expert system.
Assuming that all of our 2,000+ rules are completely isolated (i.e. no rule i ever depends
on any rule j, for all i,j) we want to consider building (at start of day) a KSPool (size
24) , KBPool (size 24), and a ThreadPoolExecutor (size 24, backed by BlockingQueue). As
facts arrive throughout the day, those that arrive simultaneously are Queue'd to the
TPE, that then delegates the fact's need for service to a task Runnable, which in
turn calls a KSPool[i].fireAllRules() (with isolation to KBPool[i]). In such a scheme, we
would potentially be able to render decisions concurrently when facts arrive
simultaneously ( capacity 24).
Is this design ambition common w/in current DROOLs use cases? Does the current (or
future) DROOLS offering include any in-place capability to Pool KS or Pool KB? If not,
are there any potential DROOLs concerns or "gotchas" wrt to our pursuing this
ambition (in a "let's build this now!" prototype)?
As always, tremendous thanks to all in this community forum.
Ben D Cotton III
Morgan Stanley & Co.
OTC Derivatives Clearing Technology
1221 AOTA Rockefeller Ctr - Flr 27
New York, NY 10020
(212)762.9094
ben.cotton@ms.com<mailto:ben.cotton@ms.com>
________________________________
NOTICE: Morgan Stanley is not acting as a municipal advisor and the opinions or views
contained herein are not intended to be, and do not constitute, advice within the meaning
of Section 975 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. If you
have received this communication in error, please destroy all electronic and paper copies
and notify the sender immediately. Mistransmission is not intended to waive
confidentiality or privilege. Morgan Stanley reserves the right, to the extent permitted
under applicable law, to monitor electronic communications. This message is subject to
terms available at the following link: http://www.morganstanley.com/disclaimers If you
cannot access these links, please notify us by reply message and we will send the contents
to you. By messaging with Morgan Stanley you consent to the foregoing.
10:32 a.m.
Are you in a place where your rules have become sensitive to time and
order? If so, have you considered CEP? If it's less about that and more
about getting the work done ASAP, you could also investigate a messaging
integration pattern to assist with all the pooling/throttling/queueing
needs you've mentioned.
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 10:04 AM, Cotton, Ben
<Ben.Cotton(a)morganstanley.com>wrote:
Let’s say that a start-of-day, every day, we generate a giant
2,000+
rule .DRL, that we then use to construct into a *single* run-time
KnowledgeBase reference. We then construct a *single* run-time
KnowledgeSession reference (also at start of day). Throughout the day, all
day, facts “arrive” asynchronously into our expert system. When a fact
“arrives”, we synchronously place the fact onto our single KS and call
.fireAllRules(), which in turn synchronously outputs answers that satisfy
our “what’s the next step?” decision requirements. ****
** **
We have this working very well, but we have the ambition to achieve more.
****
** **
We want to attempt to scale this solution to accommodate the
high-frequency simultaneous “arrival” of many facts. We have at our
disposal a 24xCPU 128 gb Linux-based compute resource (nice, right?) … so,
ideally, we have the ambition to potentially accommodate the simultaneous
arrival of 24 facts into our expert system.****
** **
Assuming that all of our 2,000+ rules are completely isolated (i.e. no
rule i ever depends on any rule j, for all i,j) we want to consider
building (at start of day) a KSPool (size 24) , KBPool (size 24), and a
ThreadPoolExecutor (size 24, backed by BlockingQueue). As facts arrive
throughout the day, those that arrive simultaneously are Queue’d to the
TPE, that then delegates the fact’s need for service to a task Runnable,
which in turn calls a KSPool[i].fireAllRules() (with isolation to
KBPool[i]). In such a scheme, we would potentially be able to render
decisions concurrently when facts arrive simultaneously ( capacity 24).***
*
** **
Is this design ambition common w/in current DROOLs use cases? Does the
current (or future) DROOLS offering include any in-place capability to Pool
KS or Pool KB? If not, are there any potential DROOLs concerns or
“gotchas” wrt to our pursuing this ambition (in a “let’s build this now!”
prototype)? ****
** **
As always, tremendous thanks to all in this community forum.****
** **
* *
*Ben D Cotton III*
Morgan Stanley & Co.
OTC Derivatives Clearing Technology
1221 AOTA Rockefeller Ctr - Flr 27
New York, NY 10020
(212)762.9094
ben.cotton(a)ms.com ****
** **
** **
------------------------------
NOTICE: Morgan Stanley is not acting as a municipal advisor and the
opinions or views contained herein are not intended to be, and do not
constitute, advice within the meaning of Section 975 of the Dodd-Frank Wall
Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. If you have received this
communication in error, please destroy all electronic and paper copies and
notify the sender immediately. Mistransmission is not intended to waive
confidentiality or privilege. Morgan Stanley reserves the right, to the
extent permitted under applicable law, to monitor electronic
communications. This message is subject to terms available at the following
link: http://www.morganstanley.com/disclaimers If you cannot access these
links, please notify us by reply message and we will send the contents to
you. By messaging with Morgan Stanley you consent to the foregoing.
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
10:47 a.m.
Thanks for your response, Ary.
It is much more about accommodating high-frequency and throughput. The rules are ZERO
sensitive to time and order - they are rendered 1x at start of day. They are exceedingly
complicated, and there are lots of them ... but once they are bound to a KB nothing
changes about them for the whole day. When we put a fact on a KS.fireAllRules() task the
rendered decision is idempotent wrt to rules' firing(s) order.
Also, all arriving facts are immutable and all sessions are stateless, so we kind of have
ignored CEP (seeing it as more appropriate for a long-living ecosystem of continuously
mutating facts).
Effectively, we want a "small, simple, safe, speedy" body of operations on
"complex, cumbersome, concurrently-arriving, constant" facts.
From: rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org [mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org] On
Behalf Of Jeremy Ary
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 11:32 AM
To: Rules Users List
Subject: Re: [rules-users] ambition = ThreadPoolExecutor delegating to KBPool(s) &
KSPools(s)
Are you in a place where your rules have become sensitive to time and order? If so, have
you considered CEP? If it's less about that and more about getting the work done ASAP,
you could also investigate a messaging integration pattern to assist with all the
pooling/throttling/queueing needs you've mentioned.
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 10:04 AM, Cotton, Ben
<Ben.Cotton@morganstanley.com<mailto:Ben.Cotton@morganstanley.com>> wrote:
Let's say that a start-of-day, every day, we generate a giant 2,000+ rule .DRL, that
we then use to construct into a single run-time KnowledgeBase reference. We then
construct a single run-time KnowledgeSession reference (also at start of day). Throughout
the day, all day, facts "arrive" asynchronously into our expert system. When a
fact "arrives", we synchronously place the fact onto our single KS and call
.fireAllRules(), which in turn synchronously outputs answers that satisfy our
"what's the next step?" decision requirements.
We have this working very well, but we have the ambition to achieve more.
We want to attempt to scale this solution to accommodate the high-frequency simultaneous
"arrival" of many facts. We have at our disposal a 24xCPU 128 gb Linux-based
compute resource (nice, right?) ... so, ideally, we have the ambition to potentially
accommodate the simultaneous arrival of 24 facts into our expert system.
Assuming that all of our 2,000+ rules are completely isolated (i.e. no rule i ever depends
on any rule j, for all i,j) we want to consider building (at start of day) a KSPool (size
24) , KBPool (size 24), and a ThreadPoolExecutor (size 24, backed by BlockingQueue). As
facts arrive throughout the day, those that arrive simultaneously are Queue'd to the
TPE, that then delegates the fact's need for service to a task Runnable, which in
turn calls a KSPool[i].fireAllRules() (with isolation to KBPool[i]). In such a scheme, we
would potentially be able to render decisions concurrently when facts arrive
simultaneously ( capacity 24).
Is this design ambition common w/in current DROOLs use cases? Does the current (or
future) DROOLS offering include any in-place capability to Pool KS or Pool KB? If not,
are there any potential DROOLs concerns or "gotchas" wrt to our pursuing this
ambition (in a "let's build this now!" prototype)?
As always, tremendous thanks to all in this community forum.
Ben D Cotton III
Morgan Stanley & Co.
OTC Derivatives Clearing Technology
1221 AOTA Rockefeller Ctr - Flr 27
New York, NY 10020
(212)762.9094<tel:%28212%29762.9094>
ben.cotton@ms.com<mailto:ben.cotton@ms.com>
________________________________
NOTICE: Morgan Stanley is not acting as a municipal advisor and the opinions or views
contained herein are not intended to be, and do not constitute, advice within the meaning
of Section 975 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. If you
have received this communication in error, please destroy all electronic and paper copies
and notify the sender immediately. Mistransmission is not intended to waive
confidentiality or privilege. Morgan Stanley reserves the right, to the extent permitted
under applicable law, to monitor electronic communications. This message is subject to
terms available at the following link: http://www.morganstanley.com/disclaimers If you
cannot access these links, please notify us by reply message and we will send the contents
to you. By messaging with Morgan Stanley you consent to the foregoing.
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
________________________________
NOTICE: Morgan Stanley is not acting as a municipal advisor and the opinions or views
contained herein are not intended to be, and do not constitute, advice within the meaning
of Section 975 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. If you
have received this communication in error, please destroy all electronic and paper copies
and notify the sender immediately. Mistransmission is not intended to waive
confidentiality or privilege. Morgan Stanley reserves the right, to the extent permitted
under applicable law, to monitor electronic communications. This message is subject to
terms available at the following link: http://www.morganstanley.com/disclaimers If you
cannot access these links, please notify us by reply message and we will send the contents
to you. By messaging with Morgan Stanley you consent to the foregoing.
11:08 a.m.
Yep, that all makes sense for the more elaborated context. Sounds like
you're working with a model wherein you needn't concern yourself with
relational logic between instances, so I think the value of splitting
sessions over threads with a multi-consumer queueing setup could allow you
the opportunity to async your process with better throughput. What you and
I propose differs only in high-availability and scalability of the input
stream (potentially arising from throttling to a single instance
responsible for maintaining task scheduling and executor lifecycle),
offering an ability to recover should you lose your application containing
pooled tasks and allow for smaller pool sizes to maintain (pull only as
needed/desired from queueing and adjust that capacity on the fly for
high-usage times such as first thing in the morning).
Semi-related I just found a video about a large-scale operation that
Alexandre Porcelli created that might be of some interest to you.
http://vimeo.com/27209589
My only other thoughts going into it is consider some different approaches
for the scheduling mechanism given that, as I've had the unpleasure of
discovering before, callbacks from runnables can be fun to keep up with of
you're dependent on them, so fire-and-forget vs. results synchronicity can
make a difference in the mechanism you choose to maintain your tasks and
pools.
Regards,
Jeremy
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Cotton, Ben
<Ben.Cotton(a)morganstanley.com>wrote:
Thanks for your response, Ary.****
** **
It is much more about accommodating high-frequency and throughput. The
rules are ZERO sensitive to time and order – they are rendered 1x at start
of day. They are exceedingly complicated, and there are lots of them … but
once they are bound to a KB nothing changes about them for the whole day.
When we put a fact on a KS.fireAllRules() task the rendered decision is
idempotent wrt to rules’ firing(s) order. ****
** **
Also, all arriving facts are immutable and all sessions are stateless, so
we kind of have ignored CEP (seeing it as more appropriate for a
long-living ecosystem of continuously mutating facts). ****
** **
Effectively, we want a “small, simple, safe, speedy” body of operations on
“complex, cumbersome, concurrently-arriving, constant” facts.****
** **
** **
** **
*From:* rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org [mailto:
rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org] *On Behalf Of *Jeremy Ary
*Sent:* Thursday, February 07, 2013 11:32 AM
*To:* Rules Users List
*Subject:* Re: [rules-users] ambition = ThreadPoolExecutor delegating to
KBPool(s) & KSPools(s)****
** **
Are you in a place where your rules have become sensitive to time and
order? If so, have you considered CEP? If it's less about that and more
about getting the work done ASAP, you could also investigate a messaging
integration pattern to assist with all the pooling/throttling/queueing
needs you've mentioned.****
** **
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 10:04 AM, Cotton, Ben <Ben.Cotton(a)morganstanley.com>
wrote:****
Let’s say that a start-of-day, every day, we generate a giant 2,000+ rule
.DRL, that we then use to construct into a *single* run-time
KnowledgeBase reference. We then construct a *single* run-time
KnowledgeSession reference (also at start of day). Throughout the day, all
day, facts “arrive” asynchronously into our expert system. When a fact
“arrives”, we synchronously place the fact onto our single KS and call
.fireAllRules(), which in turn synchronously outputs answers that satisfy
our “what’s the next step?” decision requirements. ****
****
We have this working very well, but we have the ambition to achieve more.
****
****
We want to attempt to scale this solution to accommodate the
high-frequency simultaneous “arrival” of many facts. We have at our
disposal a 24xCPU 128 gb Linux-based compute resource (nice, right?) … so,
ideally, we have the ambition to potentially accommodate the simultaneous
arrival of 24 facts into our expert system.****
****
Assuming that all of our 2,000+ rules are completely isolated (i.e. no
rule i ever depends on any rule j, for all i,j) we want to consider
building (at start of day) a KSPool (size 24) , KBPool (size 24), and a
ThreadPoolExecutor (size 24, backed by BlockingQueue). As facts arrive
throughout the day, those that arrive simultaneously are Queue’d to the
TPE, that then delegates the fact’s need for service to a task Runnable,
which in turn calls a KSPool[i].fireAllRules() (with isolation to
KBPool[i]). In such a scheme, we would potentially be able to render
decisions concurrently when facts arrive simultaneously ( capacity 24).***
*
****
Is this design ambition common w/in current DROOLs use cases? Does the
current (or future) DROOLS offering include any in-place capability to Pool
KS or Pool KB? If not, are there any potential DROOLs concerns or
“gotchas” wrt to our pursuing this ambition (in a “let’s build this now!”
prototype)? ****
****
As always, tremendous thanks to all in this community forum.****
****
* *****
*Ben D Cotton III*
Morgan Stanley & Co.
OTC Derivatives Clearing Technology
1221 AOTA Rockefeller Ctr - Flr 27
New York, NY 10020
(212)762.9094
ben.cotton(a)ms.com ****
****
****
** **
------------------------------
NOTICE: Morgan Stanley is not acting as a municipal advisor and the
opinions or views contained herein are not intended to be, and do not
constitute, advice within the meaning of Section 975 of the Dodd-Frank Wall
Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. If you have received this
communication in error, please destroy all electronic and paper copies and
notify the sender immediately. Mistransmission is not intended to waive
confidentiality or privilege. Morgan Stanley reserves the right, to the
extent permitted under applicable law, to monitor electronic
communications. This message is subject to terms available at the following
link: http://www.morganstanley.com/disclaimers If you cannot access these
links, please notify us by reply message and we will send the contents to
you. By messaging with Morgan Stanley you consent to the foregoing.****
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users****
** **
------------------------------
NOTICE: Morgan Stanley is not acting as a municipal advisor and the
opinions or views contained herein are not intended to be, and do not
constitute, advice within the meaning of Section 975 of the Dodd-Frank Wall
Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. If you have received this
communication in error, please destroy all electronic and paper copies and
notify the sender immediately. Mistransmission is not intended to waive
confidentiality or privilege. Morgan Stanley reserves the right, to the
extent permitted under applicable law, to monitor electronic
communications. This message is subject to terms available at the following
link: http://www.morganstanley.com/disclaimers If you cannot access these
links, please notify us by reply message and we will send the contents to
you. By messaging with Morgan Stanley you consent to the foregoing.
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
11:40 a.m.
Thanks Jeremy. Just finished watching your referenced video "Drools & Large
Data Sets Workshop" - no doubt about it, people are explicitly using this pattern
(Pool,Queue,Delegate,Callback) w/in Drools to achieve higher concurrent "simultaneous
fact arrival" transaction throughput, and scale. Especially appreciate your comment
re: managing Runnables' callbacks w/in the proposed framework... we indeed have to be
careful here, and will re-factor or design accordingly.
From: rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org [mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org] On
Behalf Of Jeremy Ary
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 12:08 PM
To: Rules Users List
Subject: Re: [rules-users] ambition = ThreadPoolExecutor delegating to KBPool(s) &
KSPools(s)
Yep, that all makes sense for the more elaborated context. Sounds like you're working
with a model wherein you needn't concern yourself with relational logic between
instances, so I think the value of splitting sessions over threads with a multi-consumer
queueing setup could allow you the opportunity to async your process with better
throughput. What you and I propose differs only in high-availability and scalability of
the input stream (potentially arising from throttling to a single instance responsible for
maintaining task scheduling and executor lifecycle), offering an ability to recover should
you lose your application containing pooled tasks and allow for smaller pool sizes to
maintain (pull only as needed/desired from queueing and adjust that capacity on the fly
for high-usage times such as first thing in the morning).
Semi-related I just found a video about a large-scale operation that Alexandre Porcelli
created that might be of some interest to you. http://vimeo.com/27209589
My only other thoughts going into it is consider some different approaches for the
scheduling mechanism given that, as I've had the unpleasure of discovering before,
callbacks from runnables can be fun to keep up with of you're dependent on them, so
fire-and-forget vs. results synchronicity can make a difference in the mechanism you
choose to maintain your tasks and pools.
Regards,
Jeremy
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Cotton, Ben
<Ben.Cotton@morganstanley.com<mailto:Ben.Cotton@morganstanley.com>> wrote:
Thanks for your response, Ary.
It is much more about accommodating high-frequency and throughput. The rules are ZERO
sensitive to time and order - they are rendered 1x at start of day. They are exceedingly
complicated, and there are lots of them ... but once they are bound to a KB nothing
changes about them for the whole day. When we put a fact on a KS.fireAllRules() task the
rendered decision is idempotent wrt to rules' firing(s) order.
Also, all arriving facts are immutable and all sessions are stateless, so we kind of have
ignored CEP (seeing it as more appropriate for a long-living ecosystem of continuously
mutating facts).
Effectively, we want a "small, simple, safe, speedy" body of operations on
"complex, cumbersome, concurrently-arriving, constant" facts.
From:
rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org<mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org>
[mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org<mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org>]
On Behalf Of Jeremy Ary
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 11:32 AM
To: Rules Users List
Subject: Re: [rules-users] ambition = ThreadPoolExecutor delegating to KBPool(s) &
KSPools(s)
Are you in a place where your rules have become sensitive to time and order? If so, have
you considered CEP? If it's less about that and more about getting the work done ASAP,
you could also investigate a messaging integration pattern to assist with all the
pooling/throttling/queueing needs you've mentioned.
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 10:04 AM, Cotton, Ben
<Ben.Cotton@morganstanley.com<mailto:Ben.Cotton@morganstanley.com>> wrote:
Let's say that a start-of-day, every day, we generate a giant 2,000+ rule .DRL, that
we then use to construct into a single run-time KnowledgeBase reference. We then
construct a single run-time KnowledgeSession reference (also at start of day). Throughout
the day, all day, facts "arrive" asynchronously into our expert system. When a
fact "arrives", we synchronously place the fact onto our single KS and call
.fireAllRules(), which in turn synchronously outputs answers that satisfy our
"what's the next step?" decision requirements.
We have this working very well, but we have the ambition to achieve more.
We want to attempt to scale this solution to accommodate the high-frequency simultaneous
"arrival" of many facts. We have at our disposal a 24xCPU 128 gb Linux-based
compute resource (nice, right?) ... so, ideally, we have the ambition to potentially
accommodate the simultaneous arrival of 24 facts into our expert system.
Assuming that all of our 2,000+ rules are completely isolated (i.e. no rule i ever depends
on any rule j, for all i,j) we want to consider building (at start of day) a KSPool (size
24) , KBPool (size 24), and a ThreadPoolExecutor (size 24, backed by BlockingQueue). As
facts arrive throughout the day, those that arrive simultaneously are Queue'd to the
TPE, that then delegates the fact's need for service to a task Runnable, which in
turn calls a KSPool[i].fireAllRules() (with isolation to KBPool[i]). In such a scheme, we
would potentially be able to render decisions concurrently when facts arrive
simultaneously ( capacity 24).
Is this design ambition common w/in current DROOLs use cases? Does the current (or
future) DROOLS offering include any in-place capability to Pool KS or Pool KB? If not,
are there any potential DROOLs concerns or "gotchas" wrt to our pursuing this
ambition (in a "let's build this now!" prototype)?
As always, tremendous thanks to all in this community forum.
Ben D Cotton III
Morgan Stanley & Co.
OTC Derivatives Clearing Technology
1221 AOTA Rockefeller Ctr - Flr 27
New York, NY 10020
(212)762.9094<tel:%28212%29762.9094>
ben.cotton@ms.com<mailto:ben.cotton@ms.com>
________________________________
NOTICE: Morgan Stanley is not acting as a municipal advisor and the opinions or views
contained herein are not intended to be, and do not constitute, advice within the meaning
of Section 975 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. If you
have received this communication in error, please destroy all electronic and paper copies
and notify the sender immediately. Mistransmission is not intended to waive
confidentiality or privilege. Morgan Stanley reserves the right, to the extent permitted
under applicable law, to monitor electronic communications. This message is subject to
terms available at the following link: http://www.morganstanley.com/disclaimers If you
cannot access these links, please notify us by reply message and we will send the contents
to you. By messaging with Morgan Stanley you consent to the foregoing.
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
________________________________
NOTICE: Morgan Stanley is not acting as a municipal advisor and the opinions or views
contained herein are not intended to be, and do not constitute, advice within the meaning
of Section 975 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. If you
have received this communication in error, please destroy all electronic and paper copies
and notify the sender immediately. Mistransmission is not intended to waive
confidentiality or privilege. Morgan Stanley reserves the right, to the extent permitted
under applicable law, to monitor electronic communications. This message is subject to
terms available at the following link: http://www.morganstanley.com/disclaimers If you
cannot access these links, please notify us by reply message and we will send the contents
to you. By messaging with Morgan Stanley you consent to the foregoing.
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
________________________________
NOTICE: Morgan Stanley is not acting as a municipal advisor and the opinions or views
contained herein are not intended to be, and do not constitute, advice within the meaning
of Section 975 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. If you
have received this communication in error, please destroy all electronic and paper copies
and notify the sender immediately. Mistransmission is not intended to waive
confidentiality or privilege. Morgan Stanley reserves the right, to the extent permitted
under applicable law, to monitor electronic communications. This message is subject to
terms available at the following link: http://www.morganstanley.com/disclaimers If you
cannot access these links, please notify us by reply message and we will send the contents
to you. By messaging with Morgan Stanley you consent to the foregoing.
11:50 a.m.
KnowledgeSessions are created from a KnowledgeBase, and they are
independent from each other, even when they come from a single
KnowledgeBase. So I don't see the need for 24 KBases.
You've referred to "fireAllRules()", which isn't available with a
StatelessKnowledgeSession. Maybe you just need a
StatelessKnowledgeSession (you're using this term in a later mail),
that, when used in *sequential mode* is faster. Otherwise, disposing a
StatelessKnowledgeSession after processing each fact may not be faster
than simply retracting the fact from a StatefulKnowledgeSession, which
would prepare it for the next task, and not cause everything to go
through GC.
Just benchmarking will tell you what is best for your scenario.
-W
On 07/02/2013, Cotton, Ben <Ben.Cotton(a)morganstanley.com> wrote:
Thanks Jeremy. Just finished watching your referenced video
"Drools &
Large Data Sets Workshop" - no doubt about it, people are explicitly using
this pattern (Pool,Queue,Delegate,Callback) w/in Drools to achieve higher
concurrent "simultaneous fact arrival" transaction throughput, and scale.
Especially appreciate your comment re: managing Runnables' callbacks w/in
the proposed framework... we indeed have to be careful here, and will
re-factor or design accordingly.
From: rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org
[mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Ary
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 12:08 PM
To: Rules Users List
Subject: Re: [rules-users] ambition = ThreadPoolExecutor delegating to
KBPool(s) & KSPools(s)
Yep, that all makes sense for the more elaborated context. Sounds like
you're working with a model wherein you needn't concern yourself with
relational logic between instances, so I think the value of splitting
sessions over threads with a multi-consumer queueing setup could allow you
the opportunity to async your process with better throughput. What you and I
propose differs only in high-availability and scalability of the input
stream (potentially arising from throttling to a single instance responsible
for maintaining task scheduling and executor lifecycle), offering an ability
to recover should you lose your application containing pooled tasks and
allow for smaller pool sizes to maintain (pull only as needed/desired from
queueing and adjust that capacity on the fly for high-usage times such as
first thing in the morning).
Semi-related I just found a video about a large-scale operation that
Alexandre Porcelli created that might be of some interest to you.
http://vimeo.com/27209589
My only other thoughts going into it is consider some different approaches
for the scheduling mechanism given that, as I've had the unpleasure of
discovering before, callbacks from runnables can be fun to keep up with of
you're dependent on them, so fire-and-forget vs. results synchronicity can
make a difference in the mechanism you choose to maintain your tasks and
pools.
Regards,
Jeremy
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Cotton, Ben
<Ben.Cotton@morganstanley.com<mailto:Ben.Cotton@morganstanley.com>> wrote:
Thanks for your response, Ary.
It is much more about accommodating high-frequency and throughput. The
rules are ZERO sensitive to time and order - they are rendered 1x at start
of day. They are exceedingly complicated, and there are lots of them ...
but once they are bound to a KB nothing changes about them for the whole
day. When we put a fact on a KS.fireAllRules() task the rendered decision
is idempotent wrt to rules' firing(s) order.
Also, all arriving facts are immutable and all sessions are stateless, so we
kind of have ignored CEP (seeing it as more appropriate for a long-living
ecosystem of continuously mutating facts).
Effectively, we want a "small, simple, safe, speedy" body of operations on
"complex, cumbersome, concurrently-arriving, constant" facts.
From:
rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org<mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org>
[mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org<mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org>]
On Behalf Of Jeremy Ary
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 11:32 AM
To: Rules Users List
Subject: Re: [rules-users] ambition = ThreadPoolExecutor delegating to
KBPool(s) & KSPools(s)
Are you in a place where your rules have become sensitive to time and order?
If so, have you considered CEP? If it's less about that and more about
getting the work done ASAP, you could also investigate a messaging
integration pattern to assist with all the pooling/throttling/queueing needs
you've mentioned.
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 10:04 AM, Cotton, Ben
<Ben.Cotton@morganstanley.com<mailto:Ben.Cotton@morganstanley.com>> wrote:
Let's say that a start-of-day, every day, we generate a giant 2,000+ rule
.DRL, that we then use to construct into a single run-time KnowledgeBase
reference. We then construct a single run-time KnowledgeSession reference
(also at start of day). Throughout the day, all day, facts "arrive"
asynchronously into our expert system. When a fact "arrives", we
synchronously place the fact onto our single KS and call .fireAllRules(),
which in turn synchronously outputs answers that satisfy our "what's the
next step?" decision requirements.
We have this working very well, but we have the ambition to achieve more.
We want to attempt to scale this solution to accommodate the high-frequency
simultaneous "arrival" of many facts. We have at our disposal a 24xCPU 128
gb Linux-based compute resource (nice, right?) ... so, ideally, we have the
ambition to potentially accommodate the simultaneous arrival of 24 facts
into our expert system.
Assuming that all of our 2,000+ rules are completely isolated (i.e. no rule
i ever depends on any rule j, for all i,j) we want to consider building (at
start of day) a KSPool (size 24) , KBPool (size 24), and a
ThreadPoolExecutor (size 24, backed by BlockingQueue). As facts arrive
throughout the day, those that arrive simultaneously are Queue'd to the TPE,
that then delegates the fact's need for service to a task Runnable, which
in turn calls a KSPool[i].fireAllRules() (with isolation to KBPool[i]). In
such a scheme, we would potentially be able to render decisions concurrently
when facts arrive simultaneously ( capacity 24).
Is this design ambition common w/in current DROOLs use cases? Does the
current (or future) DROOLS offering include any in-place capability to Pool
KS or Pool KB? If not, are there any potential DROOLs concerns or "gotchas"
wrt to our pursuing this ambition (in a "let's build this now!"
prototype)?
As always, tremendous thanks to all in this community forum.
Ben D Cotton III
Morgan Stanley & Co.
OTC Derivatives Clearing Technology
1221 AOTA Rockefeller Ctr - Flr 27
New York, NY 10020
(212)762.9094<tel:%28212%29762.9094>
ben.cotton@ms.com<mailto:ben.cotton@ms.com>
________________________________
NOTICE: Morgan Stanley is not acting as a municipal advisor and the opinions
or views contained herein are not intended to be, and do not constitute,
advice within the meaning of Section 975 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street
Reform and Consumer Protection Act. If you have received this communication
in error, please destroy all electronic and paper copies and notify the
sender immediately. Mistransmission is not intended to waive confidentiality
or privilege. Morgan Stanley reserves the right, to the extent permitted
under applicable law, to monitor electronic communications. This message is
subject to terms available at the following link:
http://www.morganstanley.com/disclaimers If you cannot access these links,
please notify us by reply message and we will send the contents to you. By
messaging with Morgan Stanley you consent to the foregoing.
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
________________________________
NOTICE: Morgan Stanley is not acting as a municipal advisor and the opinions
or views contained herein are not intended to be, and do not constitute,
advice within the meaning of Section 975 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street
Reform and Consumer Protection Act. If you have received this communication
in error, please destroy all electronic and paper copies and notify the
sender immediately. Mistransmission is not intended to waive confidentiality
or privilege. Morgan Stanley reserves the right, to the extent permitted
under applicable law, to monitor electronic communications. This message is
subject to terms available at the following link:
http://www.morganstanley.com/disclaimers If you cannot access these links,
please notify us by reply message and we will send the contents to you. By
messaging with Morgan Stanley you consent to the foregoing.
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
________________________________
NOTICE: Morgan Stanley is not acting as a municipal advisor and the opinions
or views contained herein are not intended to be, and do not constitute,
advice within the meaning of Section 975 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street
Reform and Consumer Protection Act. If you have received this communication
in error, please destroy all electronic and paper copies and notify the
sender immediately. Mistransmission is not intended to waive confidentiality
or privilege. Morgan Stanley reserves the right, to the extent permitted
under applicable law, to monitor electronic communications. This message is
subject to terms available at the following link:
http://www.morganstanley.com/disclaimers If you cannot access these links,
please notify us by reply message and we will send the contents to you. By
messaging with Morgan Stanley you consent to the foregoing.
11:58 a.m.
Your right - it is coded with StatefulKnowledgeSession (but with which we treat as if it
were stateless).
Thanks for these inputs Wolfgang (as always!) ... we are excited to start playing with
some quick prototypes to exercise this ambition. Will report back here wrt to our
benchmarks/caveats/tradeoffs-to-consider/etc. in our findings.
-----Original Message-----
From: rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org [mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org] On
Behalf Of Wolfgang Laun
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 12:50 PM
To: Rules Users List
Subject: Re: [rules-users] ambition = ThreadPoolExecutor delegating to KBPool(s) &
KSPools(s)
KnowledgeSessions are created from a KnowledgeBase, and they are independent from each
other, even when they come from a single KnowledgeBase. So I don't see the need for 24
KBases.
You've referred to "fireAllRules()", which isn't available with a
StatelessKnowledgeSession. Maybe you just need a StatelessKnowledgeSession (you're
using this term in a later mail), that, when used in *sequential mode* is faster.
Otherwise, disposing a StatelessKnowledgeSession after processing each fact may not be
faster than simply retracting the fact from a StatefulKnowledgeSession, which would
prepare it for the next task, and not cause everything to go through GC.
Just benchmarking will tell you what is best for your scenario.
-W
On 07/02/2013, Cotton, Ben <Ben.Cotton(a)morganstanley.com> wrote:
Thanks Jeremy. Just finished watching your referenced video
"Drools
& Large Data Sets Workshop" - no doubt about it, people are explicitly
using this pattern (Pool,Queue,Delegate,Callback) w/in Drools to
achieve higher concurrent "simultaneous fact arrival" transaction throughput,
and scale.
Especially appreciate your comment re: managing Runnables' callbacks
w/in the proposed framework... we indeed have to be careful here, and
will re-factor or design accordingly.
From: rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org
[mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Ary
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 12:08 PM
To: Rules Users List
Subject: Re: [rules-users] ambition = ThreadPoolExecutor delegating to
KBPool(s) & KSPools(s)
Yep, that all makes sense for the more elaborated context. Sounds like
you're working with a model wherein you needn't concern yourself with
relational logic between instances, so I think the value of splitting
sessions over threads with a multi-consumer queueing setup could allow
you the opportunity to async your process with better throughput. What
you and I propose differs only in high-availability and scalability of
the input stream (potentially arising from throttling to a single
instance responsible for maintaining task scheduling and executor
lifecycle), offering an ability to recover should you lose your
application containing pooled tasks and allow for smaller pool sizes
to maintain (pull only as needed/desired from queueing and adjust that
capacity on the fly for high-usage times such as first thing in the morning).
Semi-related I just found a video about a large-scale operation that
Alexandre Porcelli created that might be of some interest to you.
http://vimeo.com/27209589
My only other thoughts going into it is consider some different
approaches for the scheduling mechanism given that, as I've had the
unpleasure of discovering before, callbacks from runnables can be fun
to keep up with of you're dependent on them, so fire-and-forget vs.
results synchronicity can make a difference in the mechanism you
choose to maintain your tasks and pools.
Regards,
Jeremy
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Cotton, Ben
<Ben.Cotton@morganstanley.com<mailto:Ben.Cotton@morganstanley.com>> wrote:
Thanks for your response, Ary.
It is much more about accommodating high-frequency and throughput.
The rules are ZERO sensitive to time and order - they are rendered 1x
at start of day. They are exceedingly complicated, and there are lots of them ...
but once they are bound to a KB nothing changes about them for the whole
day. When we put a fact on a KS.fireAllRules() task the rendered decision
is idempotent wrt to rules' firing(s) order.
Also, all arriving facts are immutable and all sessions are stateless,
so we kind of have ignored CEP (seeing it as more appropriate for a
long-living ecosystem of continuously mutating facts).
Effectively, we want a "small, simple, safe, speedy" body of
operations on "complex, cumbersome, concurrently-arriving, constant" facts.
From:
rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org<mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.j
boss.org>
[mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org<mailto:rules-users-bounces
@lists.jboss.org>]
On Behalf Of Jeremy Ary
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 11:32 AM
To: Rules Users List
Subject: Re: [rules-users] ambition = ThreadPoolExecutor delegating to
KBPool(s) & KSPools(s)
Are you in a place where your rules have become sensitive to time and order?
If so, have you considered CEP? If it's less about that and more about
getting the work done ASAP, you could also investigate a messaging
integration pattern to assist with all the pooling/throttling/queueing
needs you've mentioned.
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 10:04 AM, Cotton, Ben
<Ben.Cotton@morganstanley.com<mailto:Ben.Cotton@morganstanley.com>> wrote:
Let's say that a start-of-day, every day, we generate a giant 2,000+
rule .DRL, that we then use to construct into a single run-time
KnowledgeBase reference. We then construct a single run-time
KnowledgeSession reference (also at start of day). Throughout the day, all day, facts
"arrive"
asynchronously into our expert system. When a fact "arrives", we
synchronously place the fact onto our single KS and call
.fireAllRules(), which in turn synchronously outputs answers that
satisfy our "what's the next step?" decision requirements.
We have this working very well, but we have the ambition to achieve more.
We want to attempt to scale this solution to accommodate the
high-frequency simultaneous "arrival" of many facts. We have at our
disposal a 24xCPU 128 gb Linux-based compute resource (nice, right?)
... so, ideally, we have the ambition to potentially accommodate the
simultaneous arrival of 24 facts into our expert system.
Assuming that all of our 2,000+ rules are completely isolated (i.e. no
rule i ever depends on any rule j, for all i,j) we want to consider
building (at start of day) a KSPool (size 24) , KBPool (size 24), and a
ThreadPoolExecutor (size 24, backed by BlockingQueue). As facts arrive
throughout the day, those that arrive simultaneously are Queue'd to
the TPE, that then delegates the fact's need for service to a task
Runnable, which in turn calls a KSPool[i].fireAllRules() (with
isolation to KBPool[i]). In such a scheme, we would potentially be
able to render decisions concurrently when facts arrive simultaneously ( capacity 24).
Is this design ambition common w/in current DROOLs use cases? Does
the current (or future) DROOLS offering include any in-place
capability to Pool KS or Pool KB? If not, are there any potential DROOLs concerns or
"gotchas"
wrt to our pursuing this ambition (in a "let's build this now!"
prototype)?
As always, tremendous thanks to all in this community forum.
Ben D Cotton III
Morgan Stanley & Co.
OTC Derivatives Clearing Technology
1221 AOTA Rockefeller Ctr - Flr 27
New York, NY 10020
(212)762.9094<tel:%28212%29762.9094>
ben.cotton@ms.com<mailto:ben.cotton@ms.com>
________________________________
NOTICE: Morgan Stanley is not acting as a municipal advisor and the
opinions or views contained herein are not intended to be, and do not
constitute, advice within the meaning of Section 975 of the Dodd-Frank
Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. If you have received
this communication in error, please destroy all electronic and paper
copies and notify the sender immediately. Mistransmission is not
intended to waive confidentiality or privilege. Morgan Stanley
reserves the right, to the extent permitted under applicable law, to
monitor electronic communications. This message is subject to terms available at the
following link:
http://www.morganstanley.com/disclaimers If you cannot access these
links, please notify us by reply message and we will send the contents
to you. By messaging with Morgan Stanley you consent to the foregoing.
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
________________________________
NOTICE: Morgan Stanley is not acting as a municipal advisor and the
opinions or views contained herein are not intended to be, and do not
constitute, advice within the meaning of Section 975 of the Dodd-Frank
Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. If you have received
this communication in error, please destroy all electronic and paper
copies and notify the sender immediately. Mistransmission is not
intended to waive confidentiality or privilege. Morgan Stanley
reserves the right, to the extent permitted under applicable law, to
monitor electronic communications. This message is subject to terms available at the
following link:
http://www.morganstanley.com/disclaimers If you cannot access these
links, please notify us by reply message and we will send the contents
to you. By messaging with Morgan Stanley you consent to the foregoing.
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
________________________________
NOTICE: Morgan Stanley is not acting as a municipal advisor and the
opinions or views contained herein are not intended to be, and do not
constitute, advice within the meaning of Section 975 of the Dodd-Frank
Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. If you have received
this communication in error, please destroy all electronic and paper
copies and notify the sender immediately. Mistransmission is not
intended to waive confidentiality or privilege. Morgan Stanley
reserves the right, to the extent permitted under applicable law, to
monitor electronic communications. This message is subject to terms available at the
following link:
http://www.morganstanley.com/disclaimers If you cannot access these
links, please notify us by reply message and we will send the contents
to you. By messaging with Morgan Stanley you consent to the foregoing.
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTICE: Morgan Stanley is not acting as a municipal advisor and the opinions or views
contained herein are not intended to be, and do not constitute, advice within the meaning
of Section 975 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. If you
have received this communication in error, please destroy all electronic and paper copies
and notify the sender immediately. Mistransmission is not intended to waive
confidentiality or privilege. Morgan Stanley reserves the right, to the extent permitted
under applicable law, to monitor electronic communications. This message is subject to
terms available at the following link: http://www.morganstanley.com/disclaimers. If you
cannot access these links, please notify us by reply message and we will send the contents
to you. By messaging with Morgan Stanley you consent to the foregoing.
12:05 p.m.
Ø Maybe you just need a StatelessKnowledgeSession (you're using this term in a later
mail), that, when used in *sequential mode* is faster.
But the fear we have here is that the backing queue of simultaneously arriving facts could
back up if we process in synchronous sequence. We are willing to trade off an individual
fact being processed more slowly, if we can simultaneously process many facts.
As you point off, the pattern that wins the "sequential v. parallel" bake-off is
TBD.
-----Original Message-----
From: rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org [mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org] On
Behalf Of Wolfgang Laun
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 12:50 PM
To: Rules Users List
Subject: Re: [rules-users] ambition = ThreadPoolExecutor delegating to KBPool(s) &
KSPools(s)
KnowledgeSessions are created from a KnowledgeBase, and they are independent from each
other, even when they come from a single KnowledgeBase. So I don't see the need for 24
KBases.
You've referred to "fireAllRules()", which isn't available with a
StatelessKnowledgeSession. Maybe you just need a StatelessKnowledgeSession (you're
using this term in a later mail), that, when used in *sequential mode* is faster.
Otherwise, disposing a StatelessKnowledgeSession after processing each fact may not be
faster than simply retracting the fact from a StatefulKnowledgeSession, which would
prepare it for the next task, and not cause everything to go through GC.
Just benchmarking will tell you what is best for your scenario.
-W
On 07/02/2013, Cotton, Ben
<Ben.Cotton@morganstanley.com<mailto:Ben.Cotton@morganstanley.com>> wrote:
> From:
rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org<mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org
> boss.org
>
ben.cotton@ms.com<mailto:ben.cotton@ms.com<mailto:ben.cotton@ms.com%3cmailto:ben.cotton@ms.com>
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
________________________________
NOTICE: Morgan Stanley is not acting as a municipal advisor and the opinions or views
contained herein are not intended to be, and do not constitute, advice within the meaning
of Section 975 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. If you
have received this communication in error, please destroy all electronic and paper copies
and notify the sender immediately. Mistransmission is not intended to waive
confidentiality or privilege. Morgan Stanley reserves the right, to the extent permitted
under applicable law, to monitor electronic communications. This message is subject to
terms available at the following link: http://www.morganstanley.com/disclaimers If you
cannot access these links, please notify us by reply message and we will send the contents
to you. By messaging with Morgan Stanley you consent to the foregoing.
Thanks Jeremy. Just finished watching your referenced video
"Drools
& Large Data Sets Workshop" - no doubt about it, people are
explicitly
using this pattern (Pool,Queue,Delegate,Callback) w/in Drools to
achieve higher concurrent "simultaneous fact arrival"
transaction throughput, and scale.
Especially appreciate your comment re: managing Runnables'
callbacks
w/in the proposed framework... we indeed have to be careful here, and
will re-factor or design accordingly.
[mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Ary
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 12:08 PM
To: Rules Users List
Subject: Re: [rules-users] ambition = ThreadPoolExecutor delegating
to
KBPool(s) & KSPools(s)
Yep, that all makes sense for the more elaborated context. Sounds
like
you're working with a model wherein you needn't concern
yourself with
relational logic between instances, so I think the value of splitting
sessions over threads with a multi-consumer queueing setup could
allow
you the opportunity to async your process with better throughput.
What
you and I propose differs only in high-availability and scalability
of
the input stream (potentially arising from throttling to a single
instance responsible for maintaining task scheduling and executor
lifecycle), offering an ability to recover should you lose your
application containing pooled tasks and allow for smaller pool sizes
to maintain (pull only as needed/desired from queueing and adjust
that
capacity on the fly for high-usage times such as first thing in the
morning).
Semi-related I just found a video about a large-scale operation that
Alexandre Porcelli created that might be of some interest to you.
My only other thoughts going into it is consider some different
approaches for the scheduling mechanism given that, as I've had
the
unpleasure of discovering before, callbacks from runnables can be fun
to keep up with of you're dependent on them, so fire-and-forget
vs.
results synchronicity can make a difference in the mechanism you
choose to maintain your tasks and pools.
Regards,
Jeremy
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Cotton, Ben
<Ben.Cotton@morganstanley.com<mailto:Ben.Cotton@morganstanley.com<mailto:Ben.Cotton@morganstanley.com%3cmailto:Ben.Cotton@morganstanley.com>>>
wrote:
Thanks for your response, Ary.
It is much more about accommodating high-frequency and throughput.
The rules are ZERO sensitive to time and order - they are rendered
1x
at start of day. They are exceedingly complicated, and there are
lots of them ...
but once they are bound to a KB nothing changes about them for the
whole
day. When we put a fact on a KS.fireAllRules() task the rendered
decision
is idempotent wrt to rules' firing(s) order.
Also, all arriving facts are immutable and all sessions are
stateless,
so we kind of have ignored CEP (seeing it as more appropriate for a
long-living ecosystem of continuously mutating facts).
Effectively, we want a "small, simple, safe, speedy" body
of
operations on "complex, cumbersome, concurrently-arriving,
constant" facts.
From:
>
rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org<mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.j<mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org%3cmailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.j
[mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org<mailto:rules-users-bounces
@lists.jboss.org>]
On Behalf Of Jeremy Ary
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 11:32 AM
To: Rules Users List
Subject: Re: [rules-users] ambition = ThreadPoolExecutor delegating
to
KBPool(s) & KSPools(s)
Are you in a place where your rules have become sensitive to time and
order?
If so, have you considered CEP? If it's less about that and more
about
getting the work done ASAP, you could also investigate a messaging
integration pattern to assist with all the
pooling/throttling/queueing
needs you've mentioned.
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 10:04 AM, Cotton, Ben
<Ben.Cotton@morganstanley.com<mailto:Ben.Cotton@morganstanley.com<mailto:Ben.Cotton@morganstanley.com%3cmailto:Ben.Cotton@morganstanley.com>>>
wrote:
Let's say that a start-of-day, every day, we generate a giant
2,000+
rule .DRL, that we then use to construct into a single run-time
KnowledgeBase reference. We then construct a single run-time
KnowledgeSession reference (also at start of day). Throughout the
day, all day, facts "arrive"
asynchronously into our expert system. When a fact
"arrives", we
synchronously place the fact onto our single KS and call
.fireAllRules(), which in turn synchronously outputs answers that
satisfy our "what's the next step?" decision
requirements.
We have this working very well, but we have the ambition to achieve
more.
We want to attempt to scale this solution to accommodate the
high-frequency simultaneous "arrival" of many facts. We
have at our
disposal a 24xCPU 128 gb Linux-based compute resource (nice, right?)
... so, ideally, we have the ambition to potentially accommodate the
simultaneous arrival of 24 facts into our expert system.
Assuming that all of our 2,000+ rules are completely isolated (i.e.
no
rule i ever depends on any rule j, for all i,j) we want to consider
building (at start of day) a KSPool (size 24) , KBPool (size 24), and
a
ThreadPoolExecutor (size 24, backed by BlockingQueue). As facts
arrive
throughout the day, those that arrive simultaneously are Queue'd
to
the TPE, that then delegates the fact's need for service to a
task
Runnable, which in turn calls a KSPool[i].fireAllRules() (with
isolation to KBPool[i]). In such a scheme, we would potentially be
able to render decisions concurrently when facts arrive
simultaneously ( capacity 24).
Is this design ambition common w/in current DROOLs use cases? Does
the current (or future) DROOLS offering include any in-place
capability to Pool KS or Pool KB? If not, are there any potential
DROOLs concerns or "gotchas"
wrt to our pursuing this ambition (in a "let's build this
now!" prototype)?
As always, tremendous thanks to all in this community forum.
Ben D Cotton III
Morgan Stanley & Co.
OTC Derivatives Clearing Technology
1221 AOTA Rockefeller Ctr - Flr 27
New York, NY 10020
> (212)762.9094<tel:%28212%29762.9094 ________________________________
NOTICE: Morgan Stanley is not acting as a municipal advisor and the
opinions or views contained herein are not intended to be, and do not
constitute, advice within the meaning of Section 975 of the
Dodd-Frank
Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. If you have received
this communication in error, please destroy all electronic and paper
copies and notify the sender immediately. Mistransmission is not
intended to waive confidentiality or privilege. Morgan Stanley
reserves the right, to the extent permitted under applicable law, to
monitor electronic communications. This message is subject to terms
available at the following link:
http://www.morganstanley.com/disclaimers If you cannot access these
links, please notify us by reply message and we will send the
contents
to you. By messaging with Morgan Stanley you consent to the
foregoing.
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
>
rules-users@lists.jboss.org<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org%3cmailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org> ________________________________
NOTICE: Morgan Stanley is not acting as a municipal advisor and the
opinions or views contained herein are not intended to be, and do not
constitute, advice within the meaning of Section 975 of the
Dodd-Frank
Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. If you have received
this communication in error, please destroy all electronic and paper
copies and notify the sender immediately. Mistransmission is not
intended to waive confidentiality or privilege. Morgan Stanley
reserves the right, to the extent permitted under applicable law, to
monitor electronic communications. This message is subject to terms
available at the following link:
http://www.morganstanley.com/disclaimers If you cannot access these
links, please notify us by reply message and we will send the
contents
to you. By messaging with Morgan Stanley you consent to the
foregoing.
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
>
rules-users@lists.jboss.org<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org%3cmailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org> ________________________________
NOTICE: Morgan Stanley is not acting as a municipal advisor and the
opinions or views contained herein are not intended to be, and do not
constitute, advice within the meaning of Section 975 of the
Dodd-Frank
Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. If you have received
this communication in error, please destroy all electronic and paper
copies and notify the sender immediately. Mistransmission is not
intended to waive confidentiality or privilege. Morgan Stanley
reserves the right, to the extent permitted under applicable law, to
monitor electronic communications. This message is subject to terms
available at the following link:
http://www.morganstanley.com/disclaimers If you cannot access these
links, please notify us by reply message and we will send the
contents
to you. By messaging with Morgan Stanley you consent to the
foregoing.
1:17 p.m.
We all know what they say about premature optimisation, so maybe it would be worth stating
your performance goals? It might help with establishing which direction the optimisations
should go. And also whether such optimisations are even worth trying to achieve.
In a knowledge base with a reasonable number of rules, and especially if a number of facts
need to be derived on start-up, the technique Wolfgang mentions with a long-running
session is what I have found tends to give me the best performance. i.e. For each incoming
request: insert, fire, retract, fire. Obviously it depends on your rules, but
sub-millisecond evaluations are quite achieveable (~20 microseconds is the fastest I have
achieved so far). Which takes me back to the question of what throughput do you need to
achieve? And how bursty are you expecting it to be?
Of course, if there is no dependence between evaluations (i.e. you're not accumulating
transaction values or anything like that) it's pretty simple to set up a queue of
requests and a pool of stateful sessions, so it's not that much wasted effort if you
don't need it.
Steve
On 7 Feb 2013, at 18:05, "Cotton, Ben" <Ben.Cotton(a)morganstanley.com>
wrote:
Ø Maybe you just need a StatelessKnowledgeSession (you're using this term in a later
mail), that, when used in *sequential mode* is faster.
But the fear we have here is that the backing queue of simultaneously arriving facts
could back up if we process in synchronous sequence. We are willing to trade off an
individual fact being processed more slowly, if we can simultaneously process many facts.
As you point off, the pattern that wins the “sequential v. parallel” bake-off is TBD.
-----Original Message-----
From: rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org [mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org] On
Behalf Of Wolfgang Laun
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 12:50 PM
To: Rules Users List
Subject: Re: [rules-users] ambition = ThreadPoolExecutor delegating to KBPool(s) &
KSPools(s)
KnowledgeSessions are created from a KnowledgeBase, and they are independent from each
other, even when they come from a single KnowledgeBase. So I don't see the need for 24
KBases.
You've referred to "fireAllRules()", which isn't available with a
StatelessKnowledgeSession. Maybe you just need a StatelessKnowledgeSession (you're
using this term in a later mail), that, when used in *sequential mode* is faster.
Otherwise, disposing a StatelessKnowledgeSession after processing each fact may not be
faster than simply retracting the fact from a StatefulKnowledgeSession, which would
prepare it for the next task, and not cause everything to go through GC.
Just benchmarking will tell you what is best for your scenario.
-W
On 07/02/2013, Cotton, Ben <Ben.Cotton(a)morganstanley.com> wrote:
> Thanks Jeremy. Just finished watching your referenced video "Drools
> & Large Data Sets Workshop" - no doubt about it, people are explicitly
> using this pattern (Pool,Queue,Delegate,Callback) w/in Drools to
> achieve higher concurrent "simultaneous fact arrival" transaction
throughput, and scale.
> Especially appreciate your comment re: managing Runnables' callbacks
> w/in the proposed framework... we indeed have to be careful here, and
> will re-factor or design accordingly.
>
> From: rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org
> [mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Ary
> Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 12:08 PM
> To: Rules Users List
> Subject: Re: [rules-users] ambition = ThreadPoolExecutor delegating to
> KBPool(s) & KSPools(s)
>
> Yep, that all makes sense for the more elaborated context. Sounds like
> you're working with a model wherein you needn't concern yourself with
> relational logic between instances, so I think the value of splitting
> sessions over threads with a multi-consumer queueing setup could allow
> you the opportunity to async your process with better throughput. What
> you and I propose differs only in high-availability and scalability of
> the input stream (potentially arising from throttling to a single
> instance responsible for maintaining task scheduling and executor
> lifecycle), offering an ability to recover should you lose your
> application containing pooled tasks and allow for smaller pool sizes
> to maintain (pull only as needed/desired from queueing and adjust that
> capacity on the fly for high-usage times such as first thing in the morning).
>
> Semi-related I just found a video about a large-scale operation that
> Alexandre Porcelli created that might be of some interest to you.
> http://vimeo.com/27209589
>
> My only other thoughts going into it is consider some different
> approaches for the scheduling mechanism given that, as I've had the
> unpleasure of discovering before, callbacks from runnables can be fun
> to keep up with of you're dependent on them, so fire-and-forget vs.
> results synchronicity can make a difference in the mechanism you
> choose to maintain your tasks and pools.
>
> Regards,
> Jeremy
>
> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Cotton, Ben
> <Ben.Cotton@morganstanley.com<mailto:Ben.Cotton@morganstanley.com>>
wrote:
> Thanks for your response, Ary.
>
> It is much more about accommodating high-frequency and throughput.
> The rules are ZERO sensitive to time and order - they are rendered 1x
> at start of day. They are exceedingly complicated, and there are lots of them ...
> but once they are bound to a KB nothing changes about them for the whole
> day. When we put a fact on a KS.fireAllRules() task the rendered decision
> is idempotent wrt to rules' firing(s) order.
>
> Also, all arriving facts are immutable and all sessions are stateless,
> so we kind of have ignored CEP (seeing it as more appropriate for a
> long-living ecosystem of continuously mutating facts).
>
> Effectively, we want a "small, simple, safe, speedy" body of
> operations on "complex, cumbersome, concurrently-arriving, constant"
facts.
>
>
>
> From:
> rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org<mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.j
> boss.org>
> [mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org<mailto:rules-users-bounces
> @lists.jboss.org>]
> On Behalf Of Jeremy Ary
> Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 11:32 AM
> To: Rules Users List
> Subject: Re: [rules-users] ambition = ThreadPoolExecutor delegating to
> KBPool(s) & KSPools(s)
>
> Are you in a place where your rules have become sensitive to time and order?
> If so, have you considered CEP? If it's less about that and more about
> getting the work done ASAP, you could also investigate a messaging
> integration pattern to assist with all the pooling/throttling/queueing
> needs you've mentioned.
>
> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 10:04 AM, Cotton, Ben
> <Ben.Cotton@morganstanley.com<mailto:Ben.Cotton@morganstanley.com>>
wrote:
> Let's say that a start-of-day, every day, we generate a giant 2,000+
> rule .DRL, that we then use to construct into a single run-time
> KnowledgeBase reference. We then construct a single run-time
> KnowledgeSession reference (also at start of day). Throughout the day, all day,
facts "arrive"
> asynchronously into our expert system. When a fact "arrives", we
> synchronously place the fact onto our single KS and call
> .fireAllRules(), which in turn synchronously outputs answers that
> satisfy our "what's the next step?" decision requirements.
>
> We have this working very well, but we have the ambition to achieve more.
>
> We want to attempt to scale this solution to accommodate the
> high-frequency simultaneous "arrival" of many facts. We have at our
> disposal a 24xCPU 128 gb Linux-based compute resource (nice, right?)
> ... so, ideally, we have the ambition to potentially accommodate the
> simultaneous arrival of 24 facts into our expert system.
>
> Assuming that all of our 2,000+ rules are completely isolated (i.e. no
> rule i ever depends on any rule j, for all i,j) we want to consider
> building (at start of day) a KSPool (size 24) , KBPool (size 24), and a
> ThreadPoolExecutor (size 24, backed by BlockingQueue). As facts arrive
> throughout the day, those that arrive simultaneously are Queue'd to
> the TPE, that then delegates the fact's need for service to a task
> Runnable, which in turn calls a KSPool[i].fireAllRules() (with
> isolation to KBPool[i]). In such a scheme, we would potentially be
> able to render decisions concurrently when facts arrive simultaneously ( capacity
24).
>
> Is this design ambition common w/in current DROOLs use cases? Does
> the current (or future) DROOLS offering include any in-place
> capability to Pool KS or Pool KB? If not, are there any potential DROOLs concerns
or "gotchas"
> wrt to our pursuing this ambition (in a "let's build this now!"
prototype)?
>
> As always, tremendous thanks to all in this community forum.
>
>
> Ben D Cotton III
> Morgan Stanley & Co.
> OTC Derivatives Clearing Technology
> 1221 AOTA Rockefeller Ctr - Flr 27
> New York, NY 10020
> (212)762.9094<tel:%28212%29762.9094>
> ben.cotton@ms.com<mailto:ben.cotton@ms.com>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> NOTICE: Morgan Stanley is not acting as a municipal advisor and the
> opinions or views contained herein are not intended to be, and do not
> constitute, advice within the meaning of Section 975 of the Dodd-Frank
> Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. If you have received
> this communication in error, please destroy all electronic and paper
> copies and notify the sender immediately. Mistransmission is not
> intended to waive confidentiality or privilege. Morgan Stanley
> reserves the right, to the extent permitted under applicable law, to
> monitor electronic communications. This message is subject to terms available at the
following link:
> http://www.morganstanley.com/disclaimers If you cannot access these
> links, please notify us by reply message and we will send the contents
> to you. By messaging with Morgan Stanley you consent to the foregoing.
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users@lists.jboss.org<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> NOTICE: Morgan Stanley is not acting as a municipal advisor and the
> opinions or views contained herein are not intended to be, and do not
> constitute, advice within the meaning of Section 975 of the Dodd-Frank
> Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. If you have received
> this communication in error, please destroy all electronic and paper
> copies and notify the sender immediately. Mistransmission is not
> intended to waive confidentiality or privilege. Morgan Stanley
> reserves the right, to the extent permitted under applicable law, to
> monitor electronic communications. This message is subject to terms available at the
following link:
> http://www.morganstanley.com/disclaimers If you cannot access these
> links, please notify us by reply message and we will send the contents
> to you. By messaging with Morgan Stanley you consent to the foregoing.
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users@lists.jboss.org<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> NOTICE: Morgan Stanley is not acting as a municipal advisor and the
> opinions or views contained herein are not intended to be, and do not
> constitute, advice within the meaning of Section 975 of the Dodd-Frank
> Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. If you have received
> this communication in error, please destroy all electronic and paper
> copies and notify the sender immediately. Mistransmission is not
> intended to waive confidentiality or privilege. Morgan Stanley
> reserves the right, to the extent permitted under applicable law, to
> monitor electronic communications. This message is subject to terms available at the
following link:
> http://www.morganstanley.com/disclaimers If you cannot access these
> links, please notify us by reply message and we will send the contents
> to you. By messaging with Morgan Stanley you consent to the foregoing.
>
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
NOTICE: Morgan Stanley is not acting as a municipal advisor and the opinions or views
contained herein are not intended to be, and do not constitute, advice within the meaning
of Section 975 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. If you
have received this communication in error, please destroy all electronic and paper copies
and notify the sender immediately. Mistransmission is not intended to waive
confidentiality or privilege. Morgan Stanley reserves the right, to the extent permitted
under applicable law, to monitor electronic communications. This message is subject to
terms available at the following link: http://www.morganstanley.com/disclaimers If you
cannot access these links, please notify us by reply message and we will send the contents
to you. By messaging with Morgan Stanley you consent to the foregoing.
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
1:38 p.m.
Thanks for this response Steve.
Truthfully, we don't (yet!) have enough DROOLs experience to competently express our
performance goals. But we are willing to do the "homework" to close this gap.
At this time, we have no performance expectations (and, consequently, DROOLs has no
performance obligations).
But we do have the ambition to "surf" the full permutation space of possible
high-frequency fact "arrival" throughput optimization strategies. We then will
survey the relative merit of all participating on same.
This we do know= We are very excited about DROOLs' potential to unburden the
complexity of our "what do we do next?" decision making ... compelling
empowering us to partition logic away from the traditional custodians (.sql SPROCs,
.java/.cpp libraries, .q KDB+ proprietary analyses, etc.) onto something that is, well,
just better.
So we want to "bake off" every strategy, literally every conceivable
permutation, and award the blue-ribbon (possibly multiple ribbons!) based on our
*relative* view of merit.
P.S. Will exercise "insert, fire, retract, fire" in the very near term. Thanks
again!
From: rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org [mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org] On
Behalf Of Stephen Masters
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 2:18 PM
To: Rules Users List
Subject: Re: [rules-users] ambition = ThreadPoolExecutor delegating to KBPool(s) &
KSPools(s)
We all know what they say about premature optimisation, so maybe it would be worth stating
your performance goals? It might help with establishing which direction the optimisations
should go. And also whether such optimisations are even worth trying to achieve.
In a knowledge base with a reasonable number of rules, and especially if a number of facts
need to be derived on start-up, the technique Wolfgang mentions with a long-running
session is what I have found tends to give me the best performance. i.e. For each incoming
request: insert, fire, retract, fire. Obviously it depends on your rules, but
sub-millisecond evaluations are quite achieveable (~20 microseconds is the fastest I have
achieved so far). Which takes me back to the question of what throughput do you need to
achieve? And how bursty are you expecting it to be?
Of course, if there is no dependence between evaluations (i.e. you're not accumulating
transaction values or anything like that) it's pretty simple to set up a queue of
requests and a pool of stateful sessions, so it's not that much wasted effort if you
don't need it.
Steve
On 7 Feb 2013, at 18:05, "Cotton, Ben"
<Ben.Cotton@morganstanley.com<mailto:Ben.Cotton@morganstanley.com>> wrote:
Maybe you just need a StatelessKnowledgeSession (you're using
this term in a later mail), that, when used in *sequential mode* is faster.
But the fear we have here is that the backing queue of simultaneously arriving facts could
back up if we process in synchronous sequence. We are willing to trade off an individual
fact being processed more slowly, if we can simultaneously process many facts.
As you point off, the pattern that wins the "sequential v. parallel" bake-off is
TBD.
-----Original Message-----
From:
rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org<mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org>
[mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org<mailto:users-bounces@lists.jboss.org>]
On Behalf Of Wolfgang Laun
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 12:50 PM
To: Rules Users List
Subject: Re: [rules-users] ambition = ThreadPoolExecutor delegating to KBPool(s) &
KSPools(s)
KnowledgeSessions are created from a KnowledgeBase, and they are independent from each
other, even when they come from a single KnowledgeBase. So I don't see the need for 24
KBases.
You've referred to "fireAllRules()", which isn't available with a
StatelessKnowledgeSession. Maybe you just need a StatelessKnowledgeSession (you're
using this term in a later mail), that, when used in *sequential mode* is faster.
Otherwise, disposing a StatelessKnowledgeSession after processing each fact may not be
faster than simply retracting the fact from a StatefulKnowledgeSession, which would
prepare it for the next task, and not cause everything to go through GC.
Just benchmarking will tell you what is best for your scenario.
-W
On 07/02/2013, Cotton, Ben
<Ben.Cotton@morganstanley.com<mailto:Ben.Cotton@morganstanley.com>> wrote:
Thanks Jeremy. Just finished watching your referenced video
"Drools
& Large Data Sets Workshop" - no doubt about it, people are explicitly
using this pattern (Pool,Queue,Delegate,Callback) w/in Drools to
achieve higher concurrent "simultaneous fact arrival" transaction throughput,
and scale.
Especially appreciate your comment re: managing Runnables' callbacks
w/in the proposed framework... we indeed have to be careful here, and
will re-factor or design accordingly.
From:
rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org<mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org>
[mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Ary
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 12:08 PM
To: Rules Users List
Subject: Re: [rules-users] ambition = ThreadPoolExecutor delegating to
KBPool(s) & KSPools(s)
Yep, that all makes sense for the more elaborated context. Sounds like
you're working with a model wherein you needn't concern yourself with
relational logic between instances, so I think the value of splitting
sessions over threads with a multi-consumer queueing setup could allow
you the opportunity to async your process with better throughput. What
you and I propose differs only in high-availability and scalability of
the input stream (potentially arising from throttling to a single
instance responsible for maintaining task scheduling and executor
lifecycle), offering an ability to recover should you lose your
application containing pooled tasks and allow for smaller pool sizes
to maintain (pull only as needed/desired from queueing and adjust that
capacity on the fly for high-usage times such as first thing in the morning).
Semi-related I just found a video about a large-scale operation that
Alexandre Porcelli created that might be of some interest to you.
http://vimeo.com/27209589
My only other thoughts going into it is consider some different
approaches for the scheduling mechanism given that, as I've had the
unpleasure of discovering before, callbacks from runnables can be fun
to keep up with of you're dependent on them, so fire-and-forget vs.
results synchronicity can make a difference in the mechanism you
choose to maintain your tasks and pools.
Regards,
Jeremy
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Cotton, Ben
<Ben.Cotton@morganstanley.com<mailto:Ben.Cotton@morganstanley.com<mailto:Ben.Cotton@morganstanley.com%3cmailto:Ben.Cotton@morganstanley.com>>>
wrote:
Thanks for your response, Ary.
It is much more about accommodating high-frequency and throughput.
The rules are ZERO sensitive to time and order - they are rendered 1x
at start of day. They are exceedingly complicated, and there are lots of them ...
but once they are bound to a KB nothing changes about them for the whole
day. When we put a fact on a KS.fireAllRules() task the rendered decision
is idempotent wrt to rules' firing(s) order.
Also, all arriving facts are immutable and all sessions are stateless,
so we kind of have ignored CEP (seeing it as more appropriate for a
long-living ecosystem of continuously mutating facts).
Effectively, we want a "small, simple, safe, speedy" body of
operations on "complex, cumbersome, concurrently-arriving, constant" facts.
From:
rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org<mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.j<mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org%3cmailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.j>
boss.org<http://boss.org>>
[mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org<mailto:users-bounces@lists.jboss.org><mailto:rules-users-bounces
@lists.jboss.org<http://lists.jboss.org>>]
On Behalf Of Jeremy Ary
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 11:32 AM
To: Rules Users List
Subject: Re: [rules-users] ambition = ThreadPoolExecutor delegating to
KBPool(s) & KSPools(s)
Are you in a place where your rules have become sensitive to time and order?
If so, have you considered CEP? If it's less about that and more about
getting the work done ASAP, you could also investigate a messaging
integration pattern to assist with all the pooling/throttling/queueing
needs you've mentioned.
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 10:04 AM, Cotton, Ben
<Ben.Cotton@morganstanley.com<mailto:Ben.Cotton@morganstanley.com<mailto:Ben.Cotton@morganstanley.com%3cmailto:Ben.Cotton@morganstanley.com>>>
wrote:
Let's say that a start-of-day, every day, we generate a giant 2,000+
rule .DRL, that we then use to construct into a single run-time
KnowledgeBase reference. We then construct a single run-time
KnowledgeSession reference (also at start of day). Throughout the day, all day, facts
"arrive"
asynchronously into our expert system. When a fact "arrives", we
synchronously place the fact onto our single KS and call
.fireAllRules(), which in turn synchronously outputs answers that
satisfy our "what's the next step?" decision requirements.
We have this working very well, but we have the ambition to achieve more.
We want to attempt to scale this solution to accommodate the
high-frequency simultaneous "arrival" of many facts. We have at our
disposal a 24xCPU 128 gb Linux-based compute resource (nice, right?)
... so, ideally, we have the ambition to potentially accommodate the
simultaneous arrival of 24 facts into our expert system.
Assuming that all of our 2,000+ rules are completely isolated (i.e. no
rule i ever depends on any rule j, for all i,j) we want to consider
building (at start of day) a KSPool (size 24) , KBPool (size 24), and a
ThreadPoolExecutor (size 24, backed by BlockingQueue). As facts arrive
throughout the day, those that arrive simultaneously are Queue'd to
the TPE, that then delegates the fact's need for service to a task
Runnable, which in turn calls a KSPool[i].fireAllRules() (with
isolation to KBPool[i]). In such a scheme, we would potentially be
able to render decisions concurrently when facts arrive simultaneously ( capacity 24).
Is this design ambition common w/in current DROOLs use cases? Does
the current (or future) DROOLS offering include any in-place
capability to Pool KS or Pool KB? If not, are there any potential DROOLs concerns or
"gotchas"
wrt to our pursuing this ambition (in a "let's build this now!"
prototype)?
As always, tremendous thanks to all in this community forum.
Ben D Cotton III
Morgan Stanley & Co.
OTC Derivatives Clearing Technology
1221 AOTA Rockefeller Ctr - Flr 27
New York, NY 10020
(212)762.9094<tel:%28212%29762.9094>
ben.cotton@ms.com<mailto:ben.cotton@ms.com<mailto:ben.cotton@ms.com%3cmailto:ben.cotton@ms.com>>
________________________________
NOTICE: Morgan Stanley is not acting as a municipal advisor and the
opinions or views contained herein are not intended to be, and do not
constitute, advice within the meaning of Section 975 of the Dodd-Frank
Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. If you have received
this communication in error, please destroy all electronic and paper
copies and notify the sender immediately. Mistransmission is not
intended to waive confidentiality or privilege. Morgan Stanley
reserves the right, to the extent permitted under applicable law, to
monitor electronic communications. This message is subject to terms available at the
following link:
http://www.morganstanley.com/disclaimers If you cannot access these
links, please notify us by reply message and we will send the contents
to you. By messaging with Morgan Stanley you consent to the foregoing.
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org%3cmailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
________________________________
NOTICE: Morgan Stanley is not acting as a municipal advisor and the
opinions or views contained herein are not intended to be, and do not
constitute, advice within the meaning of Section 975 of the Dodd-Frank
Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. If you have received
this communication in error, please destroy all electronic and paper
copies and notify the sender immediately. Mistransmission is not
intended to waive confidentiality or privilege. Morgan Stanley
reserves the right, to the extent permitted under applicable law, to
monitor electronic communications. This message is subject to terms available at the
following link:
http://www.morganstanley.com/disclaimers If you cannot access these
links, please notify us by reply message and we will send the contents
to you. By messaging with Morgan Stanley you consent to the foregoing.
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org%3cmailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
________________________________
NOTICE: Morgan Stanley is not acting as a municipal advisor and the
opinions or views contained herein are not intended to be, and do not
constitute, advice within the meaning of Section 975 of the Dodd-Frank
Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. If you have received
this communication in error, please destroy all electronic and paper
copies and notify the sender immediately. Mistransmission is not
intended to waive confidentiality or privilege. Morgan Stanley
reserves the right, to the extent permitted under applicable law, to
monitor electronic communications. This message is subject to terms available at the
following link:
http://www.morganstanley.com/disclaimers If you cannot access these
links, please notify us by reply message and we will send the contents
to you. By messaging with Morgan Stanley you consent to the foregoing.
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
________________________________
NOTICE: Morgan Stanley is not acting as a municipal advisor and the opinions or views
contained herein are not intended to be, and do not constitute, advice within the meaning
of Section 975 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. If you
have received this communication in error, please destroy all electronic and paper copies
and notify the sender immediately. Mistransmission is not intended to waive
confidentiality or privilege. Morgan Stanley reserves the right, to the extent permitted
under applicable law, to monitor electronic communications. This message is subject to
terms available at the following link: http://www.morganstanley.com/disclaimers If you
cannot access these links, please notify us by reply message and we will send the contents
to you. By messaging with Morgan Stanley you consent to the foregoing.
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
________________________________
NOTICE: Morgan Stanley is not acting as a municipal advisor and the opinions or views
contained herein are not intended to be, and do not constitute, advice within the meaning
of Section 975 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. If you
have received this communication in error, please destroy all electronic and paper copies
and notify the sender immediately. Mistransmission is not intended to waive
confidentiality or privilege. Morgan Stanley reserves the right, to the extent permitted
under applicable law, to monitor electronic communications. This message is subject to
terms available at the following link: http://www.morganstanley.com/disclaimers If you
cannot access these links, please notify us by reply message and we will send the contents
to you. By messaging with Morgan Stanley you consent to the foregoing.
4307
days inactive
4307
days old
9 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Cotton, Ben -
Jeremy Ary -
Stephen Masters -
Wolfgang Laun