[infinispan-dev] Distributed Counter Discussion

[Bela Ban]

So actually you don't care if you have multiple counters in case of a 
network split, but you do care that the numbers of different counters 
get reconciled when a network partition heals.

Example
- C1: 1000
- Network split: C1: 1000, C2: 1000
- Different clients update counters on both sides of the partition: C1: 
1500 C2: 1600
- Network split disappears, reconciling C1 to 2100: 1000 +500 +600. This 
means the 500 added to C1 should have been added to C2 as well, and the 
600 to C2 should have been added to C1

If such a behavior would be acceptable, then we could do without CP and 
live with AP

On 18/03/16 14:19, Eric Wittmann wrote:
> Yes, precisely.  The API Gateway itself is clustered.  It services a
> large volume of inbound traffic which it reverse-proxies to appropriate
> back-end APIs after applying policies such as security, rate limiting,
> caching, etc.
>
> -Eric
>
> On 3/18/2016 2:32 AM, Bela Ban wrote:
>> Stupid question: whay do you need a distributed counter for this? Is the
>> service you're monitoring replicated in a cluster?
>>
>> On 17/03/16 18:06, Eric Wittmann wrote:
>>> Greetings.  Apologies for coming in a bit late on this conversation.
>>> Tristan pointed me to it a couple of days ago and unfortunately I'm just
>>> now getting time to reply.
>>>
>>> I can try to quickly give an overview of apiman's (JBoss API Management
>>> Gateway) requirements.
>>>
>>> What we're trying to do is implement support for Limiting policies:
>>>
>>> * Rate Limiting/Throttling (e.g. limit of 100 requests per second)
>>> * Quotas (e.g. limit of 100,000,000 requests per month)
>>> * Transfer Quotas (e.g. limit of 2.5GB of data downloaded per day)
>>>
>>> We will need to support multiple backing implementations of the Rate
>>> Limiter, and we're trying to get Infinispan to be one of those
>>> implementations.
>>>
>>> In no particular order, we would need the following characteristics:
>>>
>>> - Can be "squishy" for quotas and transfer quotas:  If you
>>>       get 100,001,017 requests that's OK
>>> - Strict would be cool as an option:  Hard-fail when the
>>>       counter reaches the limit - no chance it will go over.
>>> - Lots of individual counters:  users may publish 100s of
>>>       APIs to the Gateway, and each API may be consumed by
>>>       100s or 1000s of users/client.  Depending on configuration
>>>       of the policy, *each* user/client has a separate limit.
>>> - Counters need to be created dynamically:  users can
>>>       add APIs via the Management UI, configure them to add
>>>       policies (e.g. a Quota policy) and then publish them to
>>>       a running Gateway, at which point end users can invoke
>>>       the API through the Gateway, which will use a counter
>>>       to enforce the Quota.
>>> - Counter values reset at the end of a time boundary:  for
>>>       example, at the end of the month the counter value for
>>>       the example quota above would reset to 0.
>>> - Don't care (right now) what the counter value is: at the
>>>       moment we simply need to know if some counter max value
>>>       has been reached.  In the future we would like to know
>>>       when a max value is being "approached" (e.g. to notify a
>>>       user)
>>> - Should be persistent: it would not be ideal for e.g. per-
>>>       month quota values to be lost on server restart.
>>>
>>> That's all the high level requirements I can think of off the top of my
>>> head, and after reading all of the current messages in this thread. :)
>>>
>>> -Eric
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> infinispan-dev mailing list
>>> infinispan-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
>>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> infinispan-dev mailing list
> infinispan-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
>

-- 
Bela Ban, JGroups lead (http://www.jgroups.org)