17

I'm trying to implement a cluster using Erlang as the glue that holds it all together. I like the idea that it creates a fully connected graph of nodes, but upon reading different articles online, it seems as though this doesn't scale well (having a max of 50 - 100 nodes). Did the developers of OTP impose this limitation on purpose? I do know that you can setup nodes to have explicit connections only as well as have hidden nodes, etc. But, it seems as though the default out-of-the-box setup isn't very scalable.

So to the questions:

  1. If you had 5 nodes (A, B, C, D, E) that all had explicit connections such that A-B-C-D-E. Does Erlang/OTP allow A to talk directly to E or does A have to pass messages from B through D to get to E, and thus that's the reason for the fully connected graph? Again, it makes sense but it doesn't scale well from what I've seen.

  2. If one was to try and go for a scalable and fault-tolerant system, what are your options? It seems as though, if you can't create a fully connected graph because you have too many nodes, the next best thing would be to create a tree of some kind. But, this doesn't seem very fault-tolerant because if the root or any parent of children nodes dies, you would lose a significant portion of your cluster.

  3. In looking into supervisors and workers, all of the examples I've seen apply this to processes on a single node. Could it be applied to a cluster of nodes to help implement fault-tolerance?

  4. Can nodes be part of several clusters?

Thanks for your help, if there is a semi-recent website or blogpost (roughly 1-year old) that I've missed, I'd be happy to look at those. But, I've scoured the internet pretty well.

Jonathan Hall
  • 75,165
  • 16
  • 143
  • 189
SolomonS
  • 227
  • 3
  • 9

5 Answers5

12

  1. Yes, you can send messages to a process on any remote node in a cluster, for example, by using its process identifier (pid). This is called location transparency. And yes, it scales well (see Riak, CouchDB, RabbitMQ, etc).

  2. Note that one node can run hundred thousands of processes. Erlang has proven to be very scalable and was built for fault tolerance. There are other approaches to build bigger, e.g. SOA approach of CloudI (see comments). You also could build clusters that use hidden nodes if you really really need to.

  3. At the node level you would take a different approach, for example, build identical nodes that are easy to replace if they fail and the work is taken over by the remaining nodes. Check out how Riak handles this (look into riak_core and check the blog post Introducing Riak Core).

  4. Nodes can leave and enter a cluster but cannot be part of multiple clusters at the same time. Connected nodes share one cluster cookie which is used to identify connected nodes. You can set the cookie while the VM is running (see Distributed Erlang).

Read http://learnyousomeerlang.com/ for greater good.

Jonathan Hall
  • 75,165
  • 16
  • 143
  • 189
Tilman
  • 2,015
  • 14
  • 16
8

The distribution protocol is about providing robustness, not scalability. What you want to do is to group your cluster into smaller areas and then use connections, which are not distribution in Erlang but in, say, TCP sessions. You could run 5 groups of 10 machines each. This means the 10 machines have seamless Pid distribution: you can call a pid on another machine. But distributing to another group means you can't seamlessly address the group like that.

You generally want some kind of "route reflection" as in BGP.

I GIVE CRAP ANSWERS
  • 18,739
  • 3
  • 42
  • 47
2

1) I think you need a direct connection between nodes to communicate between processes. This does, however, mean that you don't need persistent connections between all the nodes if two will never communicate (say if they're only workers, not coordinators).

2) You can create a not-fully-connected graph of erlang nodes. The documentation is hard to find, and comes with problems - you disable the global system which handles global names in the cluster, so you have to do everything by locally registered names, or locally registered names on remote nodes. Or just use Pids, as they work too. To start an erlang node like this, use erl ... -connect_all false .... I hope you know what you're up to, as I couldn't trust myself to do that.

It also turns out that a not-fully-connected graph of erlang nodes is a current research topic. The RELEASE Project is currently working on exactly that, and have come up with a concept of S-groups, which are essentially fully-connected groups. However, nodes can be members of more than one S-group and nodes in separate s-groups don't have to be fully connected but can establish the connections they need on demand to do direct node-to-node communication. It's worth finding presentations of theirs because the research is really interesting.

Another thing worth pointing out is that several people have found that you can get up to 150-200 nodes in a fully-connected cluster. Do you really have a use-case for more nodes than that? Surely 150-200 incredibly beefy computers would do most things you could throw at them, unless you have a ridiculous project to do.

3) While you can't start processes on a different node using gen_server:start_link/3,4, you can certainly call servers on a foreign node very easily. It seems that they've overlooked being able to start servers on foreign nodes, but there's probably good reason for it - such as a ridiculous number of error cases.

4) Try looking at hidden nodes, and at having a not-fully-connected cluster. They should allow you to group nodes as you see fit.

TL;DR: Scaling is hard, let's go shopping.

Sam Elliott
  • 3,870
  • 2
  • 19
  • 22
1

There are some good answers already, so I'm trying to be simple.

1) No, if A and E are not connected directly, A cannot talk to E. The distribution protocol runs on direct TCP connection - no routing included.

2) I think a tree structure is good enough - trade-offs always exist.

3) There's no 'supervisor for nodes', but erlang:monitor_node is your friend.

4) Yes. A node can talk to nodes from different 'clusters'. In the local node, use erlang:set_cookie(OtherNode, OtherCookie) to access a remote node with a different cookie.

l04m33
  • 586
  • 3
  • 12
0

1) yes. they talk to each other

2) 3) and 4) Generally speaking, when building a scalable and fault tolerant system, you would want, or more over, need to divide the work load to different "regions" or "clusters". Supervisor/Worker model has this envisioned thus the topology. What you need is a few processes coordinating work between clusters and all workers within one single cluster will talk to each other to balance out within group.

As you can see, with this topology, the "limitation" is not really a limitation as long as you divide your tasks carefully and in a balanced fashion. Personally, I believe a tree like structure for supervisor processes is not avoidable in large scale systems, and this is the practice I'm following. Reasons are vary but boils down to scalability, fault tolerance as fall back policy implementation, maintenance need and portability of the clusters.

So in conclusion,

2) use a tree-like topology for your supervisors. let workers explicitly connect to each other and talk within their own domain with the supervisors.

3) while this is the native designed environment, as I presume, I'm pretty sure a supervisor can talk to a worker on a different machine. I would not suggest this as fault tolerance can be hell in remote worker scenario.

4) you should never let a node be part of two different cluster at the same moment. You can switch it from one cluster to another though.

Xephon
  • 393
  • 1
  • 12