Morgan Tocker
Morgan Tocker

Reputation: 3438

How does Rails 4 Russian doll caching prevent stampedes?

I am looking to find information on how the caching mechanism in Rails 4 prevents against multiple users trying to regenerate cache keys at once, aka a cache stampede: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cache_stampede

I've not been able to find out much information via Googling. If I look at other systems (such as Drupal) cache stampede prevention is implemented via a semaphores table in the database.

Upvotes: 20

Views: 2114

Answers (6)

Nick Urban
Nick Urban

Reputation: 3588

Rails does not have a built-in mechanism to prevent cache stampedes.

According to the README for atomic_mem_cache_store (a replacement for ActiveSupport::Cache::MemCacheStore that mitigates cache stampedes):

Rails (and any framework relying on active support cache store) does not offer any built-in solution to this problem

Unfortunately, I'm guessing that this gem won't solve your problem either. It supports fragment caching, but it only works with time-based expiration.

Read more about it here: https://github.com/nel/atomic_mem_cache_store

Update and possible solution:

I thought about this a bit more and came up with what seems to me to be a plausible solution. I haven't verified that this works, and there are probably better ways to do it, but I was trying to think of the smallest change that would mitigate the majority of the problem.

I assume you're doing something like cache model do in your templates as described by DHH (http://37signals.com/svn/posts/3113-how-key-based-cache-expiration-works). The problem is that when the model's updated_at column changes, the cache_key likewise changes, and all your servers try to re-create the template at the same time. In order to prevent the servers from stampeding, you would need to retain the old cache_key for a brief time.

You might be able to do this by (dum da dum) caching the cache_key of the object with a short expiration (say, 1 second) and a race_condition_ttl.

You could create a module like this and include it in your models:

module StampedeAvoider
  def cache_key
    orig_cache_key = super
    Rails.cache.fetch("/cache-keys/#{self.class.table_name}/#{self.id}", expires_in: 1, race_condition_ttl: 2) { orig_cache_key }
  end
end

Let's review what would happen. There are a bunch of servers calling cache model. If your model includes StampedeAvoider, then its cache_key will now be fetching /cache-keys/models/1, and returning something like /models/1-111 (where 111 is the timestamp), which cache will use to fetch the compiled template fragment.

When you update the model, model.cache_key will begin returning /models/1-222 (assuming 222 is the new timestamp), but for the first second after that, cache will keep seeing /models/1-111, since that is what is returned by cache_key. Once 1 second passes, all of the servers will get a cache-miss on /cache-keys/models/1 and will try to regenerate it. If they all recreated it immediately, it would defeat the point of overriding cache_key. But because we set race_condition_ttl to 2, all of the servers except for the first will be delayed for 2 seconds, during which time they will continue to fetch the old cached template based on the old cache key. Once the 2 seconds have passed, fetch will begin returning the new cache key (which will have been updated by the first thread which tried to read/update /cache-keys/models/1) and they will get a cache hit, returning the template compiled by that first thread.

Ta-da! Stampede averted.

Note that if you did this, you would be doing twice as many cache reads, but depending on how common stampedes are, it could be worth it.

I haven't tested this. If you try it, please let me know how it goes :)

Upvotes: 7

Andrew Hacking
Andrew Hacking

Reputation: 6366

A reasonable strategy would be to:

  • use a :race_condition_ttl with at least the expected time it takes to refresh the resource. Setting it to less time than expected to perform a refresh is not advisable as the angry mob will end up trying to refresh it, resulting in a stampede.
  • use an :expires_in time calculated as the maximum acceptable expiry time minus the :race_condition_ttl to allow for refreshing the resource by a single worker and avoiding a stampede.

Using the above strategy will ensure that you don't exceed your expiry/staleness deadline and also avoid a stampede. It works because only one worker gets through to refresh, whilst the angry mob are held off using the cache value with the race_condition_ttl extension time right up to the originally intended expiry time.

Upvotes: 0

Daniel
Daniel

Reputation: 7172

There is no protection against memcache stampedes. This is a real problem when multiple machines are involved and multiple processes on those multiple machines. -Ouch-.

The problem is compounded when one of the key processes has "died" leaving any "locking" ... locked.

In order to prevent stampedes you have to re-compute the data before it expires. So, if your data is valid for 10 minutes, you need to regenerate again at the 5th minute and re-set the data with a new expiration for 10 more minutes. Thus you don't wait until the data expires to set it again.

Should also not allow your data to expire at the 10 minute mark, but re-compute it every 5 minutes, and it should never expire. :)

You can use wget & cron to periodically call the code.

I recommend using redis, which will allow you to save the data and reload it in the advent of a crash.

-daniel

Upvotes: 0

jokklan
jokklan

Reputation: 3550

Very interesting question. I searched on google (you get more results if you search for "dog pile" instead of "stampede") but like you, did I not get any answers, except this one blog post: protecting from dogpile using memcache.

Basically does it store you fragment in two keys: key:timestamp (where timestamp would be updated_at for active record objects) and key:last.

def custom_write_dogpile(key, timestamp, fragment, options)
  Rails.cache.write(key + ':' + timestamp.to_s, fragment)
  Rails.cache.write(key + ':last', fragment)
  Rails.cache.delete(key + ':refresh-thread')
  fragment
end

Now when reading from the cache, and trying to fetch a non existing cache, will it instead try to fecth the key:last fragment instead:

def custom_read_dogpile(key, timestamp, options)
  result = Rails.cache.read(timestamp_key(name, timestamp))

  if result.blank?
    Rails.cache.write(name + ':refresh-thread', 0, raw: true, unless_exist: true, expires_in: 5.seconds)
    if Rails.cache.increment(name + ':refresh-thread') == 1
      # The cache didn't exists
      result = nil
    else
      # Fetch the last cache, as the new one has not been created yet
      result = Rails.cache.read(name + ':last')
    end
  end
  result
end

This is a simplified summary of the by Moshe Bergman that i linked to before, or you can find here.

Upvotes: 0

Gene
Gene

Reputation: 47020

Great question. A partial answer that applies to single multi-threaded Rails servers but not multiprocess(or) environments (thanks to Nick Urban for drawing this distinction) is that the ActionView template compilation code blocks on a mutex that is per template. See line 230 in template.rb here. Notice there is a check for completed compilation both before grabbing the lock and after.

The effect is to serialize attempts to compile the same template, where only the first will actually do the compilation and the rest will get the already completed result.

Upvotes: 0

phillbaker
phillbaker

Reputation: 1548

The :race_condition_ttl setting in ActiveSupport::Cache::Store#fetch should help avoid this problem. As the documentation says:

Setting :race_condition_ttl is very useful in situations where a cache entry is used very frequently and is under heavy load. If a cache expires and due to heavy load seven different processes will try to read data natively and then they all will try to write to cache. To avoid that case the first process to find an expired cache entry will bump the cache expiration time by the value set in :race_condition_ttl. Yes, this process is extending the time for a stale value by another few seconds. Because of extended life of the previous cache, other processes will continue to use slightly stale data for a just a bit longer. In the meantime that first process will go ahead and will write into cache the new value. After that all the processes will start getting new value. The key is to keep :race_condition_ttl small.

Upvotes: 5

Related Questions