Upgrade to Pro
— share decks privately, control downloads, hide ads and more …
Speaker Deck
Features
Speaker Deck
PRO
Sign in
Sign up for free
Search
Search
Distributed Elixir
Search
Sponsored
·
Ship Features Fearlessly
Turn features on and off without deploys. Used by thousands of Ruby developers.
→
Maciej Kaszubowski
July 07, 2018
Programming
210
0
Share
Embed
Copy iframe code
Copy JS code
Copy link
Start on current slide
Distributed Elixir
Presentation about some of the tools for distributed programming in Elixir
Maciej Kaszubowski
July 07, 2018
More Decks by Maciej Kaszubowski
See All by Maciej Kaszubowski
Error-free Elixir
mkaszubowski
0
460
Modular Design in Elixir (ElixirConf EU 2019)
mkaszubowski
2
930
The Big Ball of Nouns
mkaszubowski
0
150
Modular Design in Elixir
mkaszubowski
1
420
Our three years with Elixir
mkaszubowski
0
300
Concurrency Basics for Elixir
mkaszubowski
0
160
Software Architecture
mkaszubowski
0
170
Let it crash - fault tolerance in Elixir/OTP
mkaszubowski
0
550
CRDTs - The science behind Phoenix Presence
mkaszubowski
2
320
Other Decks in Programming
See All in Programming
AI時代に設計が 最大の生産性レバーになる 意図駆動開発とデータを消さない設計|Don't Delete Your Data or Your Intent — Design as the Deepest Lever in the AI Era
tomohisa
1
810
OpenSpecのproposalにbrainstormingを持たせてみた
tigertora7571
1
220
関東Kaggler会_NVIDIA_Nemotron_コンペ_振り返り
rick_ds
0
530
SlackアプリとLambdaの 連携を構築した話
pawn_4_s
1
110
PHP Application における Kubernetes 内 gRPC 通信
ganchiku
0
590
型も通る、synthも通る、それでも危ない 〜AIのCDKの権限とコストを機械で検証する〜 / It Passes Type Checks, It Passes Synth Checks, but It’s Still Risky — Automatically Verifying Permissions and Costs in AI’s CDK —
seike460
PRO
1
550
GDG Korea Android: 2026 I/O Extended ~ What's new in Android development tools
pluu
0
220
Lean は証明の正しさを確認するためだけのツールって思ってませんか?
inoueasei
1
150
Jindong: Introducing Declarative Haptics in Compose Multiplatform
l2hyunwoo
0
110
Go言語とトイモデルで学ぶTransformerの気持ち / fukuokago23-transformer
monochromegane
0
170
自動化したのに回らない テスト運用の壁―AI時代の品質責任と生産性
mfunaki
0
140
いまどきの Codex で開発する visionOS アプリの開発スタイルについて
karad
0
130
Featured
See All Featured
Avoiding the “Bad Training, Faster” Trap in the Age of AI
tmiket
0
200
Building Better People: How to give real-time feedback that sticks.
wjessup
370
20k
Mind Mapping
helmedeiros
PRO
1
310
Chasing Engaging Ingredients in Design
codingconduct
0
260
Ethics towards AI in product and experience design
skipperchong
2
340
Helping Users Find Their Own Way: Creating Modern Search Experiences
danielanewman
31
3.3k
Digital Projects Gone Horribly Wrong (And the UX Pros Who Still Save the Day) - Dean Schuster
uxyall
1
2.3k
For a Future-Friendly Web
brad_frost
183
10k
Jamie Indigo - Trashchat’s Guide to Black Boxes: Technical SEO Tactics for LLMs
techseoconnect
PRO
0
590
Optimizing for Happiness
mojombo
378
71k
Amusing Abliteration
ianozsvald
1
240
Learning to Love Humans: Emotional Interface Design
aarron
275
41k
Transcript
It’s scary out there
Organisational Matters
None
We’re 1 year old!
Summer break (probably)
We’re looking for speakers!
It’s scary out there Distributed Systems in Elixir Poznań Elixir
Meetup #8
None
Pid 1 Pid 2
Pid 1 Pid 2 Node A Node B
The basics
iex --name
[email protected]
--cookie cookie -S mix
Node.connect(:’
[email protected]
')
(DEMO)
#PID<0.94.0>
#PID<0.94.0> node identifier (relative to current node)
#PID<0.94.0> node identifier (relative to current node) 0 =a local
process
#PID<0.94.0> Process id node identifier (relative to current node)
How does it work?
Pid 1 Node A Pid 2 Node B
Pid 1 Node A Pid 2 Node B TCP Connection
send(pid2, msg) Pid 1 Node A Pid 2 Node B
TCP Connection
send(pid2, msg) Pid 1 Node A Pid 2 Node B
destination_node = node(pid) TCP Connection
send(pid2, msg) Pid 1 Node A Pid 2 Node B
destination_node = node(pid) :erlang.term_to_binary(msg) TCP Connection
send(pid2, msg) Pid 1 Node A Pid 2 Node B
destination_node = node(pid) :erlang.term_to_binary(msg) TCP Connection
send(pid2, msg) Pid 1 Node A Pid 2 Node B
destination_node = node(pid) :erlang.term_to_binary(msg) TCP Connection :erlang.binary_to_term(encode)
send(pid2, msg) Pid 1 Node A receive msg Pid 2
Node B destination_node = node(pid) :erlang.term_to_binary(msg) TCP Connection :erlang.binary_to_term(encode)
Distributed Systems?
Distributed Systems? Solved!
Well, not exactly…
Difficulties
Node A Node B
Node A Node B Node C
Node A Node B Node C Node D
None
A lot of messages
us-east-1 us-west-2
8 fallacies of distributed computing
fallacies of distributed computing 1. The network is reliable 2.
Latency is zero 3. Bandwidth is infinite 4. The network is secure 5. Topology doesn’t change 6. The is one administrator 7. Transport cost is zero 8. The network is homogenous
CAP THEOREM
CAP THEOREM us-west-2 us-east-1
CAP THEOREM us-west-2 us-east-1 Set X=5
CAP THEOREM us-west-2 us-east-1 Set X=5 Read X
CAP THEOREM us-west-2 us-east-1 Set X=5 Set X = 7
Consistency or Availability (under network partition)
Consistency or Speed In practice
Guarantees
Pid 1 Pid 2 Pid3 Guarantees m1, m2, m3 m4,
m5, m6 send(pid2, m1) send(pid2, m2) send(pid2, m3) send(pid2, m4) send(pid2, m5) send(pid2, m6)
Pid 1 Pid 2 Pid3 Guarantees m1, m2, m3 m4,
m5, m6 send(pid2, m1) send(pid2, m2) send(pid2, m3) send(pid2, m4) send(pid2, m5) send(pid2, m6) Ordering between two processes is preserved
Pid 1 Pid 2 Pid3 Guarantees m4, m5, m6 send(pid2,
m1) send(pid2, m2) send(pid2, m3) send(pid2, m4) send(pid2, m5) send(pid2, m6) m1, m2, m3 Delivery is not guaranteed
Pid 1 Pid 2 Pid3 Guarantees m1, m2, m3 m4,
m5, m6 send(pid2, m1) send(pid2, m2) send(pid2, m3) send(pid2, m4) send(pid2, m5) send(pid2, m6) Ordering between different processes is not guaranteed
[m1, m2, m3, m4, m5, m6]
[m1, m2, m3, m4, m5, m6] [m4, m5, m6, m1,
m2, m3]
[m1, m2, m3, m4, m5, m6] [m4, m5, m6, m1,
m2, m3] [m1, m4, m2, m5, m3, m6]
[m1, m2, m3, m4, m5, m6] [m4, m5, m6, m1,
m2, m3] [m1, m4, m2, m5, m3, m6] [m1, m2, m3]
[m1, m2, m3, m4, m5, m6] [m4, m5, m6, m1,
m2, m3] [m1, m4, m2, m5, m3, m6] [m1, m2, m3] [m1, m3, m5, m6]
[m1, m2, m3, m4, m5, m6] [m4, m5, m6, m1,
m2, m3] [m1, m4, m2, m5, m3, m6] [m1, m2, m3] [m1, m3, m5, m6] []
[m1, m2, m3, m4, m5, m6] [m4, m5, m6, m1,
m2, m3] [m1, m4, m2, m5, m3, m6] [m1, m2, m3] [m1, m3, m5, m6] [] [m1, m3, m2, m4, m5, m6]
[m1, m2, m3, m4, m5, m6] [m4, m5, m6, m1,
m2, m3] [m1, m4, m2, m5, m3, m6] [m1, m2, m3] [m1, m3, m5, m6] [] [m1, m3, m2, m4, m5, m6] [M3, M3]
Phoenix Request A User Logged In
Phoenix Request A Phoenix Request B User Logged In User
Logged OUT
Phoenix Request A Phoenix Request B User Logged In User
Logged OUT This Can arrive first
Unfortunately, things tend to work fine locally
The Tools
:global
Pid 1 Node A Node B Pid 2
Pid 1 Node A Node B Pid 2 :global.register_name(“global”, self())
Pid 1 Node A Node B Pid 2 :global.register_name(“global”, self())
Register PId1 as “global”
Pid 1 Node A Node B Pid 2 :global.register_name(“global”, self())
Register PId1 as “global” Sure
Pid 1 Node A Node B Pid 2 :global.register_name(“global”, self())
Register PId1 as “global” Sure :global.whereis_name(“global”) = pid1
Pid 1 Node A Node B Pid 2 :global.register_name(“global”, self())
:global.register_name(“global”, self()) ?
(DEMO)
:global • single process registration (if everything works OK) •
Favours availability over consistency • Information stored locally (reading is fast) • Registration is blocking (may be slow)
:PG2
Pid1 Pid3 Pid2 [] [] []
Pid1 Pid3 Pid2 :pg2.create(“my_group”) [] [] []
Pid1 Pid3 Pid2 [] [] [] join join :pg2.join(“my_group”, self()
Pid1 Pid3 Pid2 [] [pid1] [] Monitor Monitor :pg2.join(“my_group”, self()
Pid1 Pid3 Pid2 [pid1] [pid1] [pid1] Monitor Monitor :pg2.join(“my_group”, self()
Pid1 Pid3 Pid2 [pid1] [pid1] [pid1]
Pid1 Pid3 Pid2 :pg2.join(“my_group”, self() [pid1] [pid1, pid2] [pid1]
Pid1 Pid3 Pid2 join :pg2.join(“my_group”, self() join [pid1, pid2] [pid1,
pid2] [pid1, pid2]
Pid1 Pid3 Pid2 [pid1] [pid2] [pid1]
Pid1 Pid3 Pid2 [pid1] [pid2] [pid1]
Pid1 Pid3 Pid2 [pid1] [pid2] [pid1]
Pid1 Pid3 Pid2 [pid1, pid2] [pid1, pid2] [pid1, pid2]
It will heal, but the state in inconsistent for some
time
What does it matter?
Node A Pg2 Pg2 Pg2 Node B Node C
Node A Pg2 Pg2 Pg2 Node B Node C Phoenix
Channels
Node A Pg2 Pg2 Pg2 Node B Node C Phoenix
Presence
Node A Pg2 Pg2 Pg2 Node B Node C Phoenix
Channels
:pg2 • Process groups • Favours availability over consistency •
Information stored locally (reading is fast) • Registration is blocking (may be slow)
Strongly consistent Solutions
Strongly consistent Solutions • Consensus - Raft, Paxos, ZAB •
Two-phase commit/THree-phase commit (2PC/3PC) • Read/Write quorums • Single database as a source of truth
Summary
Distributed Systems
Well, not exactly…
Asynchronous messages Distributed systems are all about
Really, there’s no magic
Just asynchronous messages between nodes
Just asynchronous messages between nodes & node failures
Just asynchronous messages between nodes & node failures & Communication
failures
Just asynchronous messages between nodes & node failures & Communication
failures & Network partitions
Tradeoffs Distributed systems are all about
Where to go next
Worth looking at • Riak_core • RAFT • Two-Phase Commit
(2PC) / Three-Phase Commit (3PC) • CRDTs • LASP and Partisan
Free online (click!) Elixir / Erlang
Free PDF (Click!) Distributed Systems
Theory (The hard stuff)
• https://raft.github.io/ (Raft Consensus) • http://learnyousomeerlang.com/distribunomicon • https://www.rgoarchitects.com/Files/fallacies.pdf (Fallacies of
distributed computing) • https://dzone.com/articles/better-explaining-cap-theorem (CAP Theorem) • https://medium.com/learn-elixir/message-order-and-delivery-guarantees-in-elixir- erlang-9350a3ea7541 (Elixir message delivery guarantees) • https://lasp-lang.readme.io/ (LASP) • https://arxiv.org/pdf/1802.02652.pdf (Partisan Paper) • https://bravenewgeek.com/tag/three-phase-commit/ (3PC)
We’re looking for speakers!
Thank You! Poznań Elixir Meetup #8