Skip to main content

CircuitBreaker

It's common for software systems to make remote calls to software running in different processes, probably on different machines across a network. One of the big differences between in-memory calls and remote calls is that remote calls can fail, or hang without a response until some timeout limit is reached. What's worse if you have many callers on a unresponsive supplier, then you can run out of critical resources leading to cascading failures across multiple systems. In his excellent book Release It, Michael Nygard popularized the Circuit Breaker pattern to prevent this kind of catastrophic cascade.
The basic idea behind the circuit breaker is very simple. You wrap a protected function call in a circuit breaker object, which monitors for failures. Once the failures reach a certain threshold, the circuit breaker trips, and all further calls to the circuit breaker return with an error, without the protected call being made at all. Usually you'll also want some kind of monitor alert if the circuit breaker trips.
Here's a simple example of this behavior in Ruby, protecting against timeouts.
I set up the breaker with a block (Lambda) which is the protected call.
cb = CircuitBreaker.new {|arg| @supplier.func arg}
The breaker stores the block, initializes various parameters (for thresholds, timeouts, and monitoring), and resets the breaker into its closed state.
class CircuitBreaker...
  attr_accessor :invocation_timeout, :failure_threshold, :monitor
  def initialize &block
    @circuit = block
    @invocation_timeout = 0.01
    @failure_threshold = 5
    @monitor = acquire_monitor
    reset
  end
Calling the circuit breaker will call the underlying block if the circuit is closed, but return an error if it's open
# client code
    aCircuitBreaker.call(5)


class CircuitBreaker...
  def call args
    case state
    when :closed
      begin
        do_call args
      rescue Timeout::Error
        record_failure
        raise $!
      end
    when :open then raise CircuitBreaker::Open
    else raise "Unreachable Code"
    end
  end
  def do_call args
    result = Timeout::timeout(@invocation_timeout) do
      @circuit.call args
    end
    reset
    return result
  end
Should we get a timeout, we increment the failure counter, successful calls reset it back to zero.
class CircuitBreaker...
  def record_failure
    @failure_count += 1
    @monitor.alert(:open_circuit) if :open == state
  end
  def reset
    @failure_count = 0
    @monitor.alert :reset_circuit
  end
I determine the state of the breaker comparing the failure count to the threshold
class CircuitBreaker...
  def state
     (@failure_count >= @failure_threshold) ? :open : :closed
  end
This simple circuit breaker avoids making the protected call when the circuit is open, but would need an external intervention to reset it when things are well again. This is a reasonable approach with electrical circuit breakers in buildings, but for software circuit breakers we can have the breaker itself detect if the underlying calls are working again. We can implement this self-resetting behavior by trying the protected call again after a suitable interval, and resetting the breaker should it succeed.
Creating this kind of breaker means adding a threshold for trying the reset and setting up a variable to hold the time of the last error.
class ResetCircuitBreaker...
  def initialize &block
    @circuit = block
    @invocation_timeout = 0.01
    @failure_threshold = 5
    @monitor = BreakerMonitor.new
    @reset_timeout = 0.1
    reset
  end
  def reset
    @failure_count = 0
    @last_failure_time = nil
    @monitor.alert :reset_circuit
  end
There is now a third state present - half open - meaning the circuit is ready to make a real call as trial to see if the problem is fixed.
class ResetCircuitBreaker...
  def state
    case
    when (@failure_count >= @failure_threshold) && 
        (Time.now - @last_failure_time) > @reset_timeout
      :half_open
    when (@failure_count >= @failure_threshold)
      :open
    else
      :closed
    end
  end
Asked to call in the half-open state results in a trial call, which will either reset the breaker if successful or restart the timeout if not.
class ResetCircuitBreaker...
  def call args
    case state
    when :closed, :half_open
      begin
        do_call args
      rescue Timeout::Error
        record_failure
        raise $!
      end
    when :open
      raise CircuitBreaker::Open
    else
      raise "Unreachable"
    end
  end
  def record_failure
    @failure_count += 1
    @last_failure_time = Time.now
    @monitor.alert(:open_circuit) if :open == state
  end
This example is a simple explanatory one, in practice circuit breakers provide a good bit more features and parameterization. Often they will protect against a range of errors that protected call could raise, such as network connection failures. Not all errors should trip the circuit, some should reflect normal failures and be dealt with as part of regular logic.
With lots of traffic, you can have problems with many calls just waiting for the initial timeout. Since remote calls are often slow, it's often a good idea to put each call on a different thread using a future or promise to handle the results when they come back. By drawing these threads from a thread pool, you can arrange for the circuit to break when the thread pool is exhausted.
The example shows a simple way to trip the breaker — a count that resets on a successful call. A more sophisticated approach might look at frequency of errors, tripping once you get, say, a 50% failure rate. You might also have different thresholds for different errors, such as a threshold of 10 for timeouts but 3 for connection failures.
The example I've shown is a circuit breaker for synchronous calls, but circuit breakers are also useful for asynchronous communications. A common technique here is to put all requests on a queue, which the supplier consumes at its speed - a useful technique to avoid overloading servers. In this case the circuit breaks when the queue fills up.
On their own, circuit breakers help reduce resources tied up in operations which are likely to fail. You avoid waiting on timeouts for the client, and a broken circuit avoids putting load on a struggling server. I talk here about remote calls, which are a common case for circuit breakers, but they can be used in any situation where you want to protect parts of a system from failures in other parts.
Circuit breakers are a valuable place for monitoring. Any change in breaker state should be logged and breakers should reveal details of their state for deeper monitoring. Breaker behavior is often a good source of warnings about deeper troubles in the environment. Operations staff should be able to trip or reset breakers.
Breakers on their own are valuable, but clients using them need to react to breaker failures. As with any remote invocation you need to consider what to do in case of failure. Does it fail the operation you're carrying out, or are there workarounds you can do? A credit card authorization could be put on a queue to deal with later, failure to get some data may be mitigated by showing some stale data that's good enough to display.

Further Reading

The netflix tech blog contains a lot of useful information on improving reliability of systems with lots of services. Their Dependency Command talks about using circuit breakers and a thread pool limit.
Netflix have open-sourced Hystrix, a sophisticated tool for dealing with latency and fault tolerance for distributed systems. It includes an implementation of the circuit breaker pattern with the thread pool limit
There are other open-source implementations of the circuit breaker pattern in RubyJavaGrails PluginC#AspectJ, and Scala

Acknowledgements

Pavel Shpak spotted and reported a bug in the example code

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

OWASP Top 10 Threats and Mitigations Exam - Single Select

Last updated 4 Aug 11 Course Title: OWASP Top 10 Threats and Mitigation Exam Questions - Single Select 1) Which of the following consequences is most likely to occur due to an injection attack? Spoofing Cross-site request forgery Denial of service   Correct Insecure direct object references 2) Your application is created using a language that does not support a clear distinction between code and data. Which vulnerability is most likely to occur in your application? Injection   Correct Insecure direct object references Failure to restrict URL access Insufficient transport layer protection 3) Which of the following scenarios is most likely to cause an injection attack? Unvalidated input is embedded in an instruction stream.   Correct Unvalidated input can be distinguished from valid instructions. A Web application does not validate a client’s access to a resource. A Web action performs an operation on behalf of the user without checking a shared sec

CKA Simulator Kubernetes 1.22

  https://killer.sh Pre Setup Once you've gained access to your terminal it might be wise to spend ~1 minute to setup your environment. You could set these: alias k = kubectl                         # will already be pre-configured export do = "--dry-run=client -o yaml"     # k get pod x $do export now = "--force --grace-period 0"   # k delete pod x $now Vim To make vim use 2 spaces for a tab edit ~/.vimrc to contain: set tabstop=2 set expandtab set shiftwidth=2 More setup suggestions are in the tips section .     Question 1 | Contexts Task weight: 1%   You have access to multiple clusters from your main terminal through kubectl contexts. Write all those context names into /opt/course/1/contexts . Next write a command to display the current context into /opt/course/1/context_default_kubectl.sh , the command should use kubectl . Finally write a second command doing the same thing into /opt/course/1/context_default_no_kubectl.sh , but without the use of k

标 题: 关于Daniel Guo 律师

发信人: q123452017 (水天一色), 信区: I140 标  题: 关于Daniel Guo 律师 关键字: Daniel Guo 发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Thu Apr 26 02:11:35 2018, 美东) 这些是lz根据亲身经历在 Immigration版上发的帖以及一些关于Daniel Guo 律师的回 帖,希望大家不要被一些马甲帖广告帖所骗,慎重考虑选择律师。 WG 和Guo两家律师对比 1. fully refund的合约上的区别 wegreened家是case不过只要第二次没有file就可以fully refund。郭家是要两次case 没过才给refund,而且只要第二次pl draft好律师就可以不退任何律师费。 2. 回信速度 wegreened家一般24小时内回信。郭律师是在可以快速回复的时候才回复很快,对于需 要时间回复或者是不愿意给出确切答复的时候就回复的比较慢。 比如:lz问过郭律师他们律所在nsc区域最近eb1a的通过率,大家也知道nsc现在杀手如 云,但是郭律师过了两天只回复说让秘书update最近的case然后去网页上查,但是上面 并没有写明tsc还是nsc。 lz还问过郭律师关于准备ps (他要求的文件)的一些问题,模版上有的东西不是很清 楚,但是他一般就是把模版上的东西再copy一遍发过来。 3. 材料区别 (推荐信) 因为我只收到郭律师写的推荐信,所以可以比下两家推荐信 wegreened家推荐信写的比较长,而且每封推荐信会用不同的语气和风格,会包含lz写 的research summary里面的某个方面 郭家四封推荐信都是一个格式,一种语气,连地址,信的称呼都是一样的,怎么看四封 推荐信都是同一个人写出来的。套路基本都是第一段目的,第二段介绍推荐人,第三段 某篇或几篇文章的abstract,最后结论 4. 前期材料准备 wegreened家要按照他们的模版准备一个十几页的research summary。 郭律师在签约之前说的是只需要准备五页左右的summary,但是在lz签完约收到推荐信 ,郭律师又发来一个很长的ps要lz自己填,而且和pl的格式基本差不多。 总结下来,申请自己上心最重要。但是如果选律师,lz更倾向于wegreened,