Skip to main content

SOA and Batch - Part 3, Conflict

(Final Part of the discussion of Batch Processing and SOA.)

A web service access pattern is usually designed for "online" or real-time(ish) access. Most web services are designed for single request / single transaction access. A account record is requested, a customer record is updated, a transaction of some sort is executed. Rarely are services designed to handle multiple requests, 10, 100, 1000, 10,000 in a single service connection.

Further reinforcing the single operation model of most web services is the communication pattern. Most services are firmly operating in a request/reply pattern – regardless of whether the actual transaction operation is a query or update, whether the reply is a simple acknowledgement or a complete data response.

Therefore, if a batch of requests comes in, the ESB is intermediating between communication patterns. On one side is a single request, a “file” with many requests (tens to millions). On the other side is a service model that accepts single requests. As each request has a communications and processing overhead, as an example 50ms (a normal TCP/IP request/reply overhead), a moderate batch of 100,000 requests would have a time impact of 80 minutes only for the communications. If the actual transaction processing was another 50ms (that would be a very fast transaction), the total time would increase to 160 minutes or 2.6 hours.

This intermediation between communication models causes a significant time overhead, as well as utilizing a significant amount of resources in the ESB environment for minimal benefit. Further, the time overhead can create competition between batch jobs.

These are risks that have to be mitigated when using this pattern.

In summary, SOA and Batch are not well suited for each other. However, all too often we find this pattern developing or being pushed from the 'reuse' mindset. If you find yourself here, be careful to manage and mitigate the model conflicts.

Popular posts from this blog

Integration Spaghetti™

  I’ve been using the term Integration Spaghetti™ for the past 9 years or so to describe what happens as systems connectivity increases and increases to the point of … unmanageability, indeterminate impact, or just generally a big mess.  A standard line of mine is “moving from spaghetti code to spaghetti connections is not an improvement”. (A standard “point to point connection mess” slide, by enterprise architect Jerry Foster from 2001.) In the past few days I’ve been meeting with a series of IT managers at a large customer and have come up with a revised definition for Integration Spaghetti™ : Integration Spaghetti™ is when the connectivity to/from an application is so complex that everyone is afraid of touching it.  An application with such spaghetti becomes nearly impossible to replace.  Estimates of change impact to the application are frequently wrong by orders of magnitude.  Interruption in the integration functioning are always a major disaster – both in terms of th

Solving Integration Chaos - Past Approaches

A U.S. Fortune 50's systems interconnect map for 1 division, "core systems only". Integration patterns began changing 15 years ago. Several early attempts were made to solve the increasing problem of the widening need for integration… Enterprise Java Beans (J2EE / EJB's) attempted to make independent callable codelets. Coupling was too tight, the technology too platform specific. Remote Method Invocation (Java / RMI) attempted to make anything independently callable, but again was too platform specific and a very tightly coupled protocol. Similarly on the Microsoft side, DCOM & COM+ attempted to make anything independently and remotely callable. However, as with RMI the approach was extremely platform and vendor specific, and very tightly coupled. MQ created a reliable independent messaging paradigm, but the cost and complexity of operation made it prohibitive for most projects and all but the largest of Enterprise IT shops which could devote a focused technology

From Spaghetti Code to Spaghetti Connections

Twenty five years ago my boss handed me the primary billing program and described a series of new features needed. The program was about 4 years old and had been worked on by 5 different programmers. It had an original design model, but between all the modifications, bug fixes, patches and quick new features thrown in, the original design pattern was impossible to discern. Any pattern was impossible to discern. It had become, to quote what’s titled the most common architecture pattern of today, ‘a big ball of mud’. After studying the program for several days, I informed my boss the program was untouchable. The effort to make anything more than a minor adjustment carried such a risk, as the impact could only be guessed at, that it was easier and less risky to rewrite it from scratch. If they had considered the future impact, they never would have let a key program degenerate that way. They would have invested the extra effort to maintain it’s design, document it property, and consider