Tag Archives: Migration

Running ActiveMQ in a Hybrid Cloud Environment with Amazon MQ

Post Syndicated from Tara Van Unen original https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/compute/running-activemq-in-a-hybrid-cloud-environment-with-amazon-mq/

This post courtesy of Greg Share, AWS Solutions Architect

Many organizations, particularly enterprises, rely on message brokers to connect and coordinate different systems. Message brokers enable distributed applications to communicate with one another, serving as the technological backbone for their IT environment, and ultimately their business services. Applications depend on messaging to work.

In many cases, those organizations have started to build new or “lift and shift” applications to AWS. In some cases, there are applications, such as mainframe systems, too costly to migrate. In these scenarios, those on-premises applications still need to interact with cloud-based components.

Amazon MQ is a managed message broker service for ActiveMQ that enables organizations to send messages between applications in the cloud and on-premises to enable hybrid environments and application modernization. For example, you can invoke AWS Lambda from queues and topics managed by Amazon MQ brokers to integrate legacy systems with serverless architectures. ActiveMQ is an open-source message broker written in Java that is packaged with clients in multiple languages, Java Message Server (JMS) client being one example.

This post shows you can use Amazon MQ to integrate on-premises and cloud environments using the network of brokers feature of ActiveMQ. It provides configuration parameters for a one-way duplex connection for the flow of messages from an on-premises ActiveMQ message broker to Amazon MQ.

ActiveMQ and the network of brokers

First, look at queues within ActiveMQ and then at the network of brokers as a mechanism to distribute messages.

The network of brokers behaves differently from models such as physical networks. The key consideration is that the production (sending) of a message is disconnected from the consumption of that message. Think of the delivery of a parcel: The parcel is sent by the supplier (producer) to the end customer (consumer). The path it took to get there is of little concern to the customer, as long as it receives the package.

The same logic can be applied to the network of brokers. Here’s how you build the flow from a simple message to a queue and build toward a network of brokers. Before you look at setting up a hybrid connection, I discuss how a broker processes messages in a simple scenario.

When a message is sent from a producer to a queue on a broker, the following steps occur:

  1. A message is sent to a queue from the producer.
  2. The broker persists this in its store or journal.
  3. At this point, an acknowledgement (ACK) is sent to the producer from the broker.

When a consumer looks to consume the message from that same queue, the following steps occur:

  1. The message listener (consumer) calls the broker, which creates a subscription to the queue.
  2. Messages are fetched from the message store and sent to the consumer.
  3. The consumer acknowledges that the message has been received before processing it.
  4. Upon receiving the ACK, the broker sets the message as having been consumed. By default, this deletes it from the queue.
    • You can set the consumer to ACK after processing by setting up transaction management or handle it manually using Session.CLIENT_ACKNOWLEDGE.

Static propagation

I now introduce the concept of static propagation with the network of brokers as the mechanism for message transfer from on-premises brokers to Amazon MQ.  Static propagation refers to message propagation that occurs in the absence of subscription information. In this case, the objective is to transfer messages arriving at your selected on-premises broker to the Amazon MQ broker for consumption within the cloud environment.

After you configure static propagation with a network of brokers, the following occurs:

  1. The on-premises broker receives a message from a producer for a specific queue.
  2. The on-premises broker sends (statically propagates) the message to the Amazon MQ broker.
  3. The Amazon MQ broker sends an acknowledgement to the on-premises broker, which marks the message as having been consumed.
  4. Amazon MQ holds the message in its queue ready for consumption.
  5. A consumer connects to Amazon MQ broker, subscribes to the queue in which the message resides, and receives the message.
  6. Amazon MQ broker marks the message as having been consumed.

Getting started

The first step is creating an Amazon MQ broker.

  1. Sign in to the Amazon MQ console and launch a new Amazon MQ broker.
  2. Name your broker and choose Next step.
  3. For Broker instance type, choose your instance size:
    mq.t2.micro
    mq.m4.large
  4. For Deployment mode, enter one of the following:
    Single-instance broker for development and test implementations (recommended)
    Active/standby broker for high availability in production environments
  5. Scroll down and enter your user name and password.
  6. Expand Advanced Settings.
  7. For VPC, Subnet, and Security Group, pick the values for the resources in which your broker will reside.
  8. For Public Accessibility, choose Yes, as connectivity is internet-based. Another option would be to use private connectivity between your on-premises network and the VPC, an example being an AWS Direct Connect or VPN connection. In that case, you could set Public Accessibility to No.
  9. For Maintenance, leave the default value, No preference.
  10. Choose Create Broker. Wait several minutes for the broker to be created.

After creation is complete, you see your broker listed.

For connectivity to work, you must configure the security group where Amazon MQ resides. For this post, I focus on the OpenWire protocol.

For Openwire connectivity, allow port 61617 access for Amazon MQ from your on-premises ActiveMQ broker source IP address. For alternate protocols, see the Amazon MQ broker configuration information for the ports required:

OpenWire – ssl://xxxxxxx.xxx.com:61617
AMQP – amqp+ssl:// xxxxxxx.xxx.com:5671
STOMP – stomp+ssl:// xxxxxxx.xxx.com:61614
MQTT – mqtt+ssl:// xxxxxxx.xxx.com:8883
WSS – wss:// xxxxxxx.xxx.com:61619

Configuring the network of brokers

Configuring the network of brokers with static propagation occurs on the on-premises broker by applying changes to the following file:
<activemq install directory>/conf activemq.xml

Network connector

This is the first configuration item required to enable a network of brokers. It is only required on the on-premises broker, which initiates and creates the connection with Amazon MQ. This connection, after it’s established, enables the flow of messages in either direction between the on-premises broker and Amazon MQ. The focus of this post is the uni-directional flow of messages from the on-premises broker to Amazon MQ.

The default activemq.xml file does not include the network connector configuration. Add this with the networkConnector element. In this scenario, edit the on-premises broker activemq.xml file to include the following information between <systemUsage> and <transportConnectors>:

<networkConnectors>
             <networkConnector 
                name="Q:source broker name->target broker name"
                duplex="false" 
                uri="static:(ssl:// aws mq endpoint:61617)" 
                userName="username"
                password="password" 
                networkTTL="2" 
                dynamicOnly="false">
                <staticallyIncludedDestinations>
                    <queue physicalName="queuename"/>
                </staticallyIncludedDestinations> 
                <excludedDestinations>
                      <queue physicalName=">" />
                </excludedDestinations>
             </networkConnector> 
     <networkConnectors>

The highlighted components are the most important elements when configuring your on-premises broker.

  • name – Name of the network bridge. In this case, it specifies two things:
    • That this connection relates to an ActiveMQ queue (Q) as opposed to a topic (T), for reference purposes.
    • The source broker and target broker.
  • duplex –Setting this to false ensures that messages traverse uni-directionally from the on-premises broker to Amazon MQ.
  • uri –Specifies the remote endpoint to which to connect for message transfer. In this case, it is an Openwire endpoint on your Amazon MQ broker. This information could be obtained from the Amazon MQ console or via the API.
  • username and password – The same username and password configured when creating the Amazon MQ broker, and used to access the Amazon MQ ActiveMQ console.
  • networkTTL – Number of brokers in the network through which messages and subscriptions can pass. Leave this setting at the current value, if it is already included in your broker connection.
  • staticallyIncludedDestinations > queue physicalName – The destination ActiveMQ queue for which messages are destined. This is the queue that is propagated from the on-premises broker to the Amazon MQ broker for message consumption.

After the network connector is configured, you must restart the ActiveMQ service on the on-premises broker for the changes to be applied.

Verify the configuration

There are a number of places within the ActiveMQ console of your on-premises and Amazon MQ brokers to browse to verify that the configuration is correct and the connection has been established.

On-premises broker

Launch the ActiveMQ console of your on-premises broker and navigate to Network. You should see an active network bridge similar to the following:

This identifies that the connection between your on-premises broker and your Amazon MQ broker is up and running.

Now navigate to Connections and scroll to the bottom of the page. Under the Network Connectors subsection, you should see a connector labeled with the name: value that you provided within the ActiveMQ.xml configuration file. You should see an entry similar to:

Amazon MQ broker

Launch the ActiveMQ console of your Amazon MQ broker and navigate to Connections. Scroll to the Connections openwire subsection and you should see a connection specified that references the name: value that you provided within the ActiveMQ.xml configuration file. You should see an entry similar to:

If you configured the uri: for AMQP, STOMP, MQTT, or WSS as opposed to Openwire, you would see this connection under the corresponding section of the Connections page.

Testing your message flow

The setup described outlines a way for messages produced on premises to be propagated to the cloud for consumption in the cloud. This section provides steps on verifying the message flow.

Verify that the queue has been created

After you specify this queue name as staticallyIncludedDestinations > queue physicalName: and your ActiveMQ service starts, you see the following on your on-premises ActiveMQ console Queues page.

As you can see, no messages have been sent but you have one consumer listed. If you then choose Active Consumers under the Views column, you see Active Consumers for TestingQ.

This is telling you that your Amazon MQ broker is a consumer of your on-premises broker for the testing queue.

Produce and send a message to the on-premises broker

Now, produce a message on an on-premises producer and send it to your on-premises broker to a queue named TestingQ. If you navigate back to the queues page of your on-premises ActiveMQ console, you see that the messages enqueued and messages dequeued column count for your TestingQ queue have changed:

What this means is that the message originating from the on-premises producer has traversed the on-premises broker and propagated immediately to the Amazon MQ broker. At this point, the message is no longer available for consumption from the on-premises broker.

If you access the ActiveMQ console of your Amazon MQ broker and navigate to the Queues page, you see the following for the TestingQ queue:

This means that the message originally sent to your on-premises broker has traversed the network of brokers unidirectional network bridge, and is ready to be consumed from your Amazon MQ broker. The indicator is the Number of Pending Messages column.

Consume the message from an Amazon MQ broker

Connect to the Amazon MQ TestingQ queue from a consumer within the AWS Cloud environment for message consumption. Log on to the ActiveMQ console of your Amazon MQ broker and navigate to the Queue page:

As you can see, the Number of Pending Messages column figure has changed to 0 as that message has been consumed.

This diagram outlines the message lifecycle from the on-premises producer to the on-premises broker, traversing the hybrid connection between the on-premises broker and Amazon MQ, and finally consumption within the AWS Cloud.

Conclusion

This post focused on an ActiveMQ-specific scenario for transferring messages within an ActiveMQ queue from an on-premises broker to Amazon MQ.

For other on-premises brokers, such as IBM MQ, another approach would be to run ActiveMQ on-premises broker and use JMS bridging to IBM MQ, while using the approach in this post to forward to Amazon MQ. Yet another approach would be to use Apache Camel for more sophisticated routing.

I hope that you have found this example of hybrid messaging between an on-premises environment in the AWS Cloud to be useful. Many customers are already using on-premises ActiveMQ brokers, and this is a great use case to enable hybrid cloud scenarios.

To learn more, see the Amazon MQ website and Developer Guide. You can try Amazon MQ for free with the AWS Free Tier, which includes up to 750 hours of a single-instance mq.t2.micro broker and up to 1 GB of storage per month for one year.

 

Amazon Relational Database Service – Looking Back at 2017

Post Syndicated from Jeff Barr original https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/amazon-relational-database-service-looking-back-at-2017/

The Amazon RDS team launched nearly 80 features in 2017. Some of them were covered in this blog, others on the AWS Database Blog, and the rest in What’s New or Forum posts. To wrap up my week, I thought it would be worthwhile to give you an organized recap. So here we go!

Certification & Security

Features

Engine Versions & Features

Regional Support

Instance Support

Price Reductions

And That’s a Wrap
I’m pretty sure that’s everything. As you can see, 2017 was quite the year! I can’t wait to see what the team delivers in 2018.

Jeff;

 

Success at Apache: A Newbie’s Narrative

Post Syndicated from mikesefanov original https://yahooeng.tumblr.com/post/170536010891

yahoodevelopers:

Kuhu Shukla (bottom center) and team at the 2017 DataWorks Summit


By Kuhu Shukla

This post first appeared here on the Apache Software Foundation blog as part of ASF’s “Success at Apache” monthly blog series.

As I sit at my desk on a rather frosty morning with my coffee, looking up new JIRAs from the previous day in the Apache Tez project, I feel rather pleased. The latest community release vote is complete, the bug fixes that we so badly needed are in and the new release that we tested out internally on our many thousand strong cluster is looking good. Today I am looking at a new stack trace from a different Apache project process and it is hard to miss how much of the exceptional code I get to look at every day comes from people all around the globe. A contributor leaves a JIRA comment before he goes on to pick up his kid from soccer practice while someone else wakes up to find that her effort on a bug fix for the past two months has finally come to fruition through a binding +1.

Yahoo – which joined AOL, HuffPost, Tumblr, Engadget, and many more brands to form the Verizon subsidiary Oath last year – has been at the frontier of open source adoption and contribution since before I was in high school. So while I have no historical trajectories to share, I do have a story on how I found myself in an epic journey of migrating all of Yahoo jobs from Apache MapReduce to Apache Tez, a then-new DAG based execution engine.

Oath grid infrastructure is through and through driven by Apache technologies be it storage through HDFS, resource management through YARN, job execution frameworks with Tez and user interface engines such as Hive, Hue, Pig, Sqoop, Spark, Storm. Our grid solution is specifically tailored to Oath’s business-critical data pipeline needs using the polymorphic technologies hosted, developed and maintained by the Apache community.

On the third day of my job at Yahoo in 2015, I received a YouTube link on An Introduction to Apache Tez. I watched it carefully trying to keep up with all the questions I had and recognized a few names from my academic readings of Yarn ACM papers. I continued to ramp up on YARN and HDFS, the foundational Apache technologies Oath heavily contributes to even today. For the first few weeks I spent time picking out my favorite (necessary) mailing lists to subscribe to and getting started on setting up on a pseudo-distributed Hadoop cluster. I continued to find my footing with newbie contributions and being ever more careful with whitespaces in my patches. One thing was clear – Tez was the next big thing for us. By the time I could truly call myself a contributor in the Hadoop community nearly 80-90% of the Yahoo jobs were now running with Tez. But just like hiking up the Grand Canyon, the last 20% is where all the pain was. Being a part of the solution to this challenge was a happy prospect and thankfully contributing to Tez became a goal in my next quarter.

The next sprint planning meeting ended with me getting my first major Tez assignment – progress reporting. The progress reporting in Tez was non-existent – “Just needs an API fix,”  I thought. Like almost all bugs in this ecosystem, it was not easy. How do you define progress? How is it different for different kinds of outputs in a graph? The questions were many.

I, however, did not have to go far to get answers. The Tez community actively came to a newbie’s rescue, finding answers and posing important questions. I started attending the bi-weekly Tez community sync up calls and asking existing contributors and committers for course correction. Suddenly the team was much bigger, the goals much more chiseled. This was new to anyone like me who came from the networking industry, where the most open part of the code are the RFCs and the implementation details are often hidden. These meetings served as a clean room for our coding ideas and experiments. Ideas were shared, to the extent of which data structure we should pick and what a future user of Tez would take from it. In between the usual status updates and extensive knowledge transfers were made.

Oath uses Apache Pig and Apache Hive extensively and most of the urgent requirements and requests came from Pig and Hive developers and users. Each issue led to a community JIRA and as we started running Tez at Oath scale, new feature ideas and bugs around performance and resource utilization materialized. Every year most of the Hadoop team at Oath travels to the Hadoop Summit where we meet our cohorts from the Apache community and we stand for hours discussing the state of the art and what is next for the project. One such discussion set the course for the next year and a half for me.

We needed an innovative way to shuffle data. Frameworks like MapReduce and Tez have a shuffle phase in their processing lifecycle wherein the data from upstream producers is made available to downstream consumers. Even though Apache Tez was designed with a feature set corresponding to optimization requirements in Pig and Hive, the Shuffle Handler Service was retrofitted from MapReduce at the time of the project’s inception. With several thousands of jobs on our clusters leveraging these features in Tez, the Shuffle Handler Service became a clear performance bottleneck. So as we stood talking about our experience with Tez with our friends from the community, we decided to implement a new Shuffle Handler for Tez. All the conversation points were tracked now through an umbrella JIRA TEZ-3334 and the to-do list was long. I picked a few JIRAs and as I started reading through I realized, this is all new code I get to contribute to and review. There might be a better way to put this, but to be honest it was just a lot of fun! All the whiteboards were full, the team took walks post lunch and discussed how to go about defining the API. Countless hours were spent debugging hangs while fetching data and looking at stack traces and Wireshark captures from our test runs. Six months in and we had the feature on our sandbox clusters. There were moments ranging from sheer frustration to absolute exhilaration with high fives as we continued to address review comments and fixing big and small issues with this evolving feature.

As much as owning your code is valued everywhere in the software community, I would never go on to say “I did this!” In fact, “we did!” It is this strong sense of shared ownership and fluid team structure that makes the open source experience at Apache truly rewarding. This is just one example. A lot of the work that was done in Tez was leveraged by the Hive and Pig community and cross Apache product community interaction made the work ever more interesting and challenging. Triaging and fixing issues with the Tez rollout led us to hit a 100% migration score last year and we also rolled the Tez Shuffle Handler Service out to our research clusters. As of last year we have run around 100 million Tez DAGs with a total of 50 billion tasks over almost 38,000 nodes.

In 2018 as I move on to explore Hadoop 3.0 as our future release, I hope that if someone outside the Apache community is reading this, it will inspire and intrigue them to contribute to a project of their choice. As an astronomy aficionado, going from a newbie Apache contributor to a newbie Apache committer was very much like looking through my telescope - it has endless possibilities and challenges you to be your best.

About the Author:

Kuhu Shukla is a software engineer at Oath and did her Masters in Computer Science at North Carolina State University. She works on the Big Data Platforms team on Apache Tez, YARN and HDFS with a lot of talented Apache PMCs and Committers in Champaign, Illinois. A recent Apache Tez Committer herself she continues to contribute to YARN and HDFS and spoke at the 2017 Dataworks Hadoop Summit on “Tez Shuffle Handler: Shuffling At Scale With Apache Hadoop”. Prior to that she worked on Juniper Networks’ router and switch configuration APIs. She likes to participate in open source conferences and women in tech events. In her spare time she loves singing Indian classical and jazz, laughing, whale watching, hiking and peering through her Dobsonian telescope.

Backblaze Hard Drive Stats for 2017

Post Syndicated from Andy Klein original https://www.backblaze.com/blog/hard-drive-stats-for-2017/

Backbalze Drive Stats 2017 Review

Beginning in April 2013, Backblaze has recorded and saved daily hard drive statistics from the drives in our data centers. Each entry consists of the date, manufacturer, model, serial number, status (operational or failed), and all of the SMART attributes reported by that drive. As of the end of 2017, there are about 88 million entries totaling 23 GB of data. You can download this data from our website if you want to do your own research, but for starters here’s what we found.

Overview

At the end of 2017 we had 93,240 spinning hard drives. Of that number, there were 1,935 boot drives and 91,305 data drives. This post looks at the hard drive statistics of the data drives we monitor. We’ll review the stats for Q4 2017, all of 2017, and the lifetime statistics for all of the drives Backblaze has used in our cloud storage data centers since we started keeping track. Along the way we’ll share observations and insights on the data presented and we look forward to you doing the same in the comments.

Hard Drive Reliability Statistics for Q4 2017

At the end of Q4 2017 Backblaze was monitoring 91,305 hard drives used to store data. For our evaluation we remove from consideration those drives which were used for testing purposes and those drive models for which we did not have at least 45 drives (read why after the chart). This leaves us with 91,243 hard drives. The table below is for the period of Q4 2017.

Hard Drive Annualized Failure Rates for Q4 2017

A few things to remember when viewing this chart:

  • The failure rate listed is for just Q4 2017. If a drive model has a failure rate of 0%, it means there were no drive failures of that model during Q4 2017.
  • There were 62 drives (91,305 minus 91,243) that were not included in the list above because we did not have at least 45 of a given drive model. The most common reason we would have fewer than 45 drives of one model is that we needed to replace a failed drive and we had to purchase a different model as a replacement because the original model was no longer available. We use 45 drives of the same model as the minimum number to qualify for reporting quarterly, yearly, and lifetime drive statistics.
  • Quarterly failure rates can be volatile, especially for models that have a small number of drives and/or a small number of drive days. For example, the Seagate 4 TB drive, model ST4000DM005, has a annualized failure rate of 29.08%, but that is based on only 1,255 drive days and 1 (one) drive failure.
  • AFR stands for Annualized Failure Rate, which is the projected failure rate for a year based on the data from this quarter only.

Bulking Up and Adding On Storage

Looking back over 2017, we not only added new drives, we “bulked up” by swapping out functional and smaller 2, 3, and 4TB drives with larger 8, 10, and 12TB drives. The changes in drive quantity by quarter are shown in the chart below:

Backblaze Drive Population by Drive Size

For 2017 we added 25,746 new drives, and lost 6,442 drives to retirement for a net of 19,304 drives. When you look at storage space, we added 230 petabytes and retired 19 petabytes, netting us an additional 211 petabytes of storage in our data center in 2017.

2017 Hard Drive Failure Stats

Below are the lifetime hard drive failure statistics for the hard drive models that were operational at the end of Q4 2017. As with the quarterly results above, we have removed any non-production drives and any models that had fewer than 45 drives.

Hard Drive Annualized Failure Rates

The chart above gives us the lifetime view of the various drive models in our data center. The Q4 2017 chart at the beginning of the post gives us a snapshot of the most recent quarter of the same models.

Let’s take a look at the same models over time, in our case over the past 3 years (2015 through 2017), by looking at the annual failure rates for each of those years.

Annual Hard Drive Failure Rates by Year

The failure rate for each year is calculated for just that year. In looking at the results the following observations can be made:

  • The failure rates for both of the 6 TB models, Seagate and WDC, have decreased over the years while the number of drives has stayed fairly consistent from year to year.
  • While it looks like the failure rates for the 3 TB WDC drives have also decreased, you’ll notice that we migrated out nearly 1,000 of these WDC drives in 2017. While the remaining 180 WDC 3 TB drives are performing very well, decreasing the data set that dramatically makes trend analysis suspect.
  • The Toshiba 5 TB model and the HGST 8 TB model had zero failures over the last year. That’s impressive, but with only 45 drives in use for each model, not statistically useful.
  • The HGST/Hitachi 4 TB models delivered sub 1.0% failure rates for each of the three years. Amazing.

A Few More Numbers

To save you countless hours of looking, we’ve culled through the data to uncover the following tidbits regarding our ever changing hard drive farm.

  • 116,833 — The number of hard drives for which we have data from April 2013 through the end of December 2017. Currently there are 91,305 drives (data drives) in operation. This means 25,528 drives have either failed or been removed from service due for some other reason — typically migration.
  • 29,844 — The number of hard drives that were installed in 2017. This includes new drives, migrations, and failure replacements.
  • 81.76 — The number of hard drives that were installed each day in 2017. This includes new drives, migrations, and failure replacements.
  • 95,638 — The number of drives installed since we started keeping records in April 2013 through the end of December 2017.
  • 55.41 — The average number of hard drives installed per day from April 2013 to the end of December 2017. The installations can be new drives, migration replacements, or failure replacements.
  • 1,508 — The number of hard drives that were replaced as failed in 2017.
  • 4.13 — The average number of hard drives that have failed each day in 2017.
  • 6,795 — The number of hard drives that have failed from April 2013 until the end of December 2017.
  • 3.94 — The average number of hard drives that have failed each day from April 2013 until the end of December 2017.

Can’t Get Enough Hard Drive Stats?

We’ll be presenting the webinar “Backblaze Hard Drive Stats for 2017” on Thursday February 9, 2017 at 10:00 Pacific time. The webinar will dig deeper into the quarterly, yearly, and lifetime hard drive stats and include the annual and lifetime stats by drive size and manufacturer. You will need to subscribe to the Backblaze BrightTALK channel to view the webinar. Sign up today.

As a reminder, the complete data set used to create the information used in this review is available on our Hard Drive Test Data page. You can download and use this data for free for your own purpose. All we ask are three things: 1) you cite Backblaze as the source if you use the data, 2) you accept that you are solely responsible for how you use the data, and 3) you do not sell this data to anyone — it is free.

Good luck and let us know if you find anything interesting.

The post Backblaze Hard Drive Stats for 2017 appeared first on Backblaze Blog | Cloud Storage & Cloud Backup.

Invoking AWS Lambda from Amazon MQ

Post Syndicated from Tara Van Unen original https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/compute/invoking-aws-lambda-from-amazon-mq/

Contributed by Josh Kahn, AWS Solutions Architect

Message brokers can be used to solve a number of needs in enterprise architectures, including managing workload queues and broadcasting messages to a number of subscribers. Amazon MQ is a managed message broker service for Apache ActiveMQ that makes it easy to set up and operate message brokers in the cloud.

In this post, I discuss one approach to invoking AWS Lambda from queues and topics managed by Amazon MQ brokers. This and other similar patterns can be useful in integrating legacy systems with serverless architectures. You could also integrate systems already migrated to the cloud that use common APIs such as JMS.

For example, imagine that you work for a company that produces training videos and which recently migrated its video management system to AWS. The on-premises system used to publish a message to an ActiveMQ broker when a video was ready for processing by an on-premises transcoder. However, on AWS, your company uses Amazon Elastic Transcoder. Instead of modifying the management system, Lambda polls the broker for new messages and starts a new Elastic Transcoder job. This approach avoids changes to the existing application while refactoring the workload to leverage cloud-native components.

This solution uses Amazon CloudWatch Events to trigger a Lambda function that polls the Amazon MQ broker for messages. Instead of starting an Elastic Transcoder job, the sample writes the received message to an Amazon DynamoDB table with a time stamp indicating the time received.

Getting started

To start, navigate to the Amazon MQ console. Next, launch a new Amazon MQ instance, selecting Single-instance Broker and supplying a broker name, user name, and password. Be sure to document the user name and password for later.

For the purposes of this sample, choose the default options in the Advanced settings section. Your new broker is deployed to the default VPC in the selected AWS Region with the default security group. For this post, you update the security group to allow access for your sample Lambda function. In a production scenario, I recommend deploying both the Lambda function and your Amazon MQ broker in your own VPC.

After several minutes, your instance changes status from “Creation Pending” to “Available.” You can then visit the Details page of your broker to retrieve connection information, including a link to the ActiveMQ web console where you can monitor the status of your broker, publish test messages, and so on. In this example, use the Stomp protocol to connect to your broker. Be sure to capture the broker host name, for example:

<BROKER_ID>.mq.us-east-1.amazonaws.com

You should also modify the Security Group for the broker by clicking on its Security Group ID. Click the Edit button and then click Add Rule to allow inbound traffic on port 8162 for your IP address.

Deploying and scheduling the Lambda function

To simplify the deployment of this example, I’ve provided an AWS Serverless Application Model (SAM) template that deploys the sample function and DynamoDB table, and schedules the function to be invoked every five minutes. Detailed instructions can be found with sample code on GitHub in the amazonmq-invoke-aws-lambda repository, with sample code. I discuss a few key aspects in this post.

First, SAM makes it easy to deploy and schedule invocation of our function:

SubscriberFunction:
	Type: AWS::Serverless::Function
	Properties:
		CodeUri: subscriber/
		Handler: index.handler
		Runtime: nodejs6.10
		Role: !GetAtt SubscriberFunctionRole.Arn
		Timeout: 15
		Environment:
			Variables:
				HOST: !Ref AmazonMQHost
				LOGIN: !Ref AmazonMQLogin
				PASSWORD: !Ref AmazonMQPassword
				QUEUE_NAME: !Ref AmazonMQQueueName
				WORKER_FUNCTIOn: !Ref WorkerFunction
		Events:
			Timer:
				Type: Schedule
				Properties:
					Schedule: rate(5 minutes)

WorkerFunction:
Type: AWS::Serverless::Function
	Properties:
		CodeUri: worker/
		Handler: index.handler
		Runtime: nodejs6.10
Role: !GetAtt WorkerFunctionRole.Arn
		Environment:
			Variables:
				TABLE_NAME: !Ref MessagesTable

In the code, you include the URI, user name, and password for your newly created Amazon MQ broker. These allow the function to poll the broker for new messages on the sample queue.

The sample Lambda function is written in Node.js, but clients exist for a number of programming languages.

stomp.connect(options, (error, client) => {
	if (error) { /* do something */ }

	let headers = {
		destination: ‘/queue/SAMPLE_QUEUE’,
		ack: ‘auto’
	}

	client.subscribe(headers, (error, message) => {
		if (error) { /* do something */ }

		message.readString(‘utf-8’, (error, body) => {
			if (error) { /* do something */ }

			let params = {
				FunctionName: MyWorkerFunction,
				Payload: JSON.stringify({
					message: body,
					timestamp: Date.now()
				})
			}

			let lambda = new AWS.Lambda()
			lambda.invoke(params, (error, data) => {
				if (error) { /* do something */ }
			})
		}
})
})

Sending a sample message

For the purpose of this example, use the Amazon MQ console to send a test message. Navigate to the details page for your broker.

About midway down the page, choose ActiveMQ Web Console. Next, choose Manage ActiveMQ Broker to launch the admin console. When you are prompted for a user name and password, use the credentials created earlier.

At the top of the page, choose Send. From here, you can send a sample message from the broker to subscribers. For this example, this is how you generate traffic to test the end-to-end system. Be sure to set the Destination value to “SAMPLE_QUEUE.” The message body can contain any text. Choose Send.

You now have a Lambda function polling for messages on the broker. To verify that your function is working, you can confirm in the DynamoDB console that the message was successfully received and processed by the sample Lambda function.

First, choose Tables on the left and select the table name “amazonmq-messages” in the middle section. With the table detail in view, choose Items. If the function was successful, you’ll find a new entry similar to the following:

If there is no message in DynamoDB, check again in a few minutes or review the CloudWatch Logs group for Lambda functions that contain debug messages.

Alternative approaches

Beyond the approach described here, you may consider other approaches as well. For example, you could use an intermediary system such as Apache Flume to pass messages from the broker to Lambda or deploy Apache Camel to trigger Lambda via a POST to API Gateway. There are trade-offs to each of these approaches. My goal in using CloudWatch Events was to introduce an easily repeatable pattern familiar to many Lambda developers.

Summary

I hope that you have found this example of how to integrate AWS Lambda with Amazon MQ useful. If you have expertise or legacy systems that leverage APIs such as JMS, you may find this useful as you incorporate serverless concepts in your enterprise architectures.

To learn more, see the Amazon MQ website and Developer Guide. You can try Amazon MQ for free with the AWS Free Tier, which includes up to 750 hours of a single-instance mq.t2.micro broker and up to 1 GB of storage per month for one year.

Migrating .NET Classic Applications to Amazon ECS Using Windows Containers

Post Syndicated from Sundar Narasiman original https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/compute/migrating-net-classic-applications-to-amazon-ecs-using-windows-containers/

This post contributed by Sundar Narasiman, Arun Kannan, and Thomas Fuller.

AWS recently announced the general availability of Windows container management for Amazon Elastic Container Service (Amazon ECS). Docker containers and Amazon ECS make it easy to run and scale applications on a virtual machine by abstracting the complex cluster management and setup needed.

Classic .NET applications are developed with .NET Framework 4.7.1 or older and can run only on a Windows platform. These include Windows Communication Foundation (WCF), ASP.NET Web Forms, and an ASP.NET MVC web app or web API.

Why classic ASP.NET?

ASP.NET MVC 4.6 and older versions of ASP.NET occupy a significant footprint in the enterprise web application space. As enterprises move towards microservices for new or existing applications, containers are one of the stepping stones for migrating from monolithic to microservices architectures. Additionally, the support for Windows containers in Windows 10, Windows Server 2016, and Visual Studio Tooling support for Docker simplifies the containerization of ASP.NET MVC apps.

Getting started

In this post, you pick an ASP.NET 4.6.2 MVC application and get step-by-step instructions for migrating to ECS using Windows containers. The detailed steps, AWS CloudFormation template, Microsoft Visual Studio solution, ECS service definition, and ECS task definition are available in the aws-ecs-windows-aspnet GitHub repository.

To help you getting started running Windows containers, here is the reference architecture for Windows containers on GitHub: ecs-refarch-cloudformation-windows. This reference architecture is the layered CloudFormation stack, in that it calls the other stacks to create the environment. The CloudFormation YAML template in this reference architecture is referenced to create a single JSON CloudFormation stack, which is used in the steps for the migration.

Steps for Migration

The code and templates to implement this migration can be found on GitHub: https://github.com/aws-samples/aws-ecs-windows-aspnet.

  1. Your development environment needs to have the latest version and updates for Visual Studio 2017, Windows 10, and Docker for Windows Stable.
  2. Next, containerize the ASP.NET application and test it locally. The size of Windows container application images is generally larger compared to Linux containers. This is because the base image of the Windows container itself is large in size, typically greater than 9 GB.
  3. After the application is containerized, the container image needs to be pushed to Amazon Elastic Container Registry (Amazon ECR). Images stored in ECR are compressed to improve pull times and reduce storage costs. In this case, you can see that ECR compresses the image to around 1 GB, for an optimization factor of 90%.
  4. Create a CloudFormation stack using the template in the ‘CloudFormation template’ folder. This creates an ECS service, task definition (referring the containerized ASP.NET application), and other related components mentioned in the ECS reference architecture for Windows containers.
  5. After the stack is created, verify the successful creation of the ECS service, ECS instances, running tasks (with the threshold mentioned in the task definition), and the Application Load Balancer’s successful health check against running containers.
  6. Navigate to the Application Load Balancer URL and see the successful rendering of the containerized ASP.NET MVC app in the browser.

Key Notes

  • Generally, Windows container images occupy large amount of space (in the order of few GBs).
  • All the task definition parameters for Linux containers are not available for Windows containers. For more information, see Windows Task Definitions.
  • An Application Load Balancer can be configured to route requests to one or more ports on each container instance in a cluster. The dynamic port mapping allows you to have multiple tasks from a single service on the same container instance.
  • IAM roles for Windows tasks require extra configuration. For more information, see Windows IAM Roles for Tasks. For this post, configuration was handled by the CloudFormation template.
  • The ECS container agent log file can be accessed for troubleshooting Windows containers: C:\ProgramData\Amazon\ECS\log\ecs-agent.log

Summary

In this post, you migrated an ASP.NET MVC application to ECS using Windows containers.

The logical next step is to automate the activities for migration to ECS and build a fully automated continuous integration/continuous deployment (CI/CD) pipeline for Windows containers. This can be orchestrated by leveraging services such as AWS CodeCommit, AWS CodePipeline, AWS CodeBuild, Amazon ECR, and Amazon ECS. You can learn more about how this is done in the Set Up a Continuous Delivery Pipeline for Containers Using AWS CodePipeline and Amazon ECS post.

If you have questions or suggestions, please comment below.

Judge Tells Movie Company That it Can’t Sue Alleged BitTorrent Pirate

Post Syndicated from Andy original https://torrentfreak.com/judge-tells-movie-company-that-it-cant-sue-alleged-bittorrent-pirate-180118/

Despite a considerable migration towards streaming piracy in recent years, copyright trolls are still finding plenty of potential targets around the world. Alleged BitTorrent pirates are target number one since their activities are most easily tracked. However, it isn’t all plain sailing for the pirate hunters.

Last December we reported on the case of Lingfu Zhang, an Oregan resident accused by the makers of the 2015 drama film Fathers & Daughters (F&D) of downloading and sharing their content without permission. While these kinds of cases often disappear, with targets making confidential settlements to make a legal battle go away, Zhang chose to fight back.

Represented by attorney David Madden, Zhang not only denied downloading the movie in question but argued that the filmmakers had signed away their online distribution rights. He noted that (F&D), via an agent, had sold the online distribution rights to a third party not involved in the case.

So, if F&D no longer held the right to distribute the movie online, suing for an infringement of those rights would be impossible. With this in mind, Zhang’s attorney moved for a summary judgment in his client’s favor.

“ZHANG denies downloading the movie but Defendant’s current motion for summary judgment challenges a different portion of F&D’s case,” Madden wrote.

“Defendant argues that F&D has alienated all of the relevant rights necessary to sue for infringement under the Copyright Act.”

In response, F&D argued that they still held some rights, including the right to exploit the movie on “airlines and oceangoing vessels” but since Zhang wasn’t accused of being on either form of transport when the alleged offense occurred, the defense argued that point was moot.

Judge Michael H. Simon handed down his decision yesterday and it heralds bad news for F&D and celebration time for Zhang and his attorney. In a 17-page ruling first spotted by Fight Copyright Trolls, the Judge agrees that F&D has no standing to sue.

Citing the Righthaven LLC v. Hoehn case from 2013, the Judge notes that under the Copyright Act, only the “legal or beneficial owner of an exclusive right under a copyright” has standing to sue for infringement of that right.

Judge Simon notes that while F&D claims it is the ‘legal owner’ of the copyright to the Fathers & Daughters movie, the company “misstates the law”, adding that F&D also failed to present evidence that it is the ‘beneficial owner’ of the relevant exclusive right. On this basis, both claims are rejected.

The Judge noted that the exclusive rights to the movie were granted to a company called Vertical Entertainment which received the exclusive right to “manufacture, reproduce, sell, rent, exhibit, broadcast, transmit, stream, download, license, sub-license, distribute, sub-distribute, advertise, market, promote, publicize and exploit” the movie in the United States.

An exclusive license means that ownership of a copyright is transferred for the term of the license, meaning that Vertical – not F&D – is the legal owner under the Copyright Act. It matters not, the Judge says, that F&D retained the rights to display the movie “on airlines and ships” since only the transferee (Vertical) has standing to sue and those locations are irrelevant to the lawsuit.

“Under the Copyright Act, F&D is not the ‘legal owner’ with standing to sue for infringement relating to the rights that were transferred to Vertical through its exclusive license granted in the distribution agreement,” the Judge writes.

Also at issue was an undated document presented by F&D titled Anti-Piracy and Rights Enforcement Reservation of Rights Addendum. The document, relied upon by F&D, claimed that F&D is authorized to “enforce copyrights against Internet infringers” including those that use peer-to-peer technologies such as BitTorrent.

However, the Judge found that the peer-to-peer rights apparently reserved to F&D were infringing rights, not the display and distribution (exclusive rights) required to sue under the Copyright Act. Furthermore, the Judge determined that there was no evidence that this document existed before the lawsuit was filed. Zhang and his attorney previously asserted the addendum had been created afterwards and the Judge agrees.

“F&D did not dispute that the undated anti-piracy addendum was created after this lawsuit was filed, or otherwise respond to Defendant’s standing argument relating to the untimeliness of this document,” the Judge notes.

“Accordingly, because the only reasonable inference supported by the evidence is that this document was created after the filing of this lawsuit, it is not appropriate to consider for purposes of standing.”

So, with Vertical Entertainment the only company with the right to sue, could they be added to the lawsuit, F&D asked? Citing an earlier case, the Judge said ‘no’, noting that “summary judgment is not a procedural second chance to flesh out inadequate pleadings.”

With that, Judge Simon granted Lingfu Zhang’s request for summary judgment and dismissed F&D’s claims for lack of standing.

As noted by Fight Copyright Trolls, the movie licensing scheme employed by F&D is complex and, given the fact that notorious copyright troll outfit Guardaley is involved (Guardaley filed 24 cases in eight districts on behalf of F&D), it would be interesting if legal professionals could dig deeper, to see how far the rabbit hole goes.

The summary judgment can be found here (pdf)

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN discounts, offers and coupons