Lifting the veil on Meta’s microservice architecture: Analyses of topology and request workflows

-

This paper appeared in USENIX ATC'23. It is about a survey of microservices in Meta (nee Facebook).


We had previously reviewed a microservices survey paper from Alibaba. Motivated maybe by the desire for differentiation, the Meta paper spends the first two sections justifying why we need yet another microservices survey paper. I didn't mind reading this paper at all, it is an easy read. The paper gives another design point/view from industry on microservices topologies, call graphs, and how they evolve over time. It argues that this information will help build more accurate microservices benchmarks and artificial microservice topology/workflow generators, and also help for future microservices research and development.

I did learn some interesting information and statistics about microservices use in Meta from the paper. But I didn't find any immediately applicable insights/takeaways to improve the quality and reliability of the services we build in the cloud.  

 
The conference presentation video does an excellent job of explaining the paper. I highly recommend watching it. For my brief summary, continue reading.

Topological characteristics



Figure 1 illustrates Meta’s microservice architecture. It is similar to other large-scale microservice architectures, in that there are load balancers hitting frontend services, which in turn call other services. They say that, at Meta, business use case is a sufficient partitioning for define [micro]services. Endpoints in the figure and the rest of the paper just means API interfaces.

The main findings related to topology are summarized below.

Finding F1: Meta's microservice topology contains three types of software entities that communicate within and amongst one another: (1) Those that represent a single, well-scoped business use case. (2) Those that serve many different business cases, but which are deployed as a single service (often from a single binary);  (3) Those that are ill-suited to the microservice architecture's expectations that business use case is a sufficient partitioning on which to base scheduling, scaling, and routing decisions and to provide observability.

What are those ill-fitting services, you say? These have Service IDs of the form inference_platform/ model_type_{random_number}. "Meta’s engineers informed us that these Service IDs are generated by a general-purpose platform for hosting per-tenant machine-learning models (called the Inference Platform). The platform serves a single business use case--i.e., serving ML models-- but many per-tenant use cases. Platform engineers chose to deploy each tenant's model under a separate Service ID so that each can be deployed and scaled independently per the tenant's requirements by the scheduler."

ML bros, screwing things for systems guys since 2018 :-) On the other end of the spectrum, databases and other platforms appear as a single service and provide their own scheduling and observability mechanisms. And, the paper points out that, both of these extreme types of usage masks the true complexity of the services and skews service- and endpoint-based analyses of microservice topologies. This is an important point, and the paper does a good job of separating these ill-fitting services from others through out the evaluation section.


Finding F2: The topology is very complex, containing over 12 million service instances and over 180,000 communication edges between services. Individual services are mostly simple, exposing just a few endpoints, but some are very complex, exposing 1000s or more endpoints. The overall topology of connected services does not exhibit a power-law relationship typical of many large-scale networks. However, the number of endpoints services expose does show a power-law relationship.



Finding F3: The topology has scaled rapidly, doubling in number of instances over the past 22 months. The rate of increase is driven by an increase in number of services (i.e., new functionality) rather than increased replication of existing ones (i.e., additional instances). The topology sees daily fluctuations due to service creations and deprecations.  The rate of increase of instances is due to new business use cases (i.e., new  microservices) rather than increased scale: check the blue line in Figure 7.

 

Request-workflow characteristics

This section analyzes service-level properties of individual request workflows using traces collected by three different profiles.

  • Ads: This profile represents a traditional CRUD web application focusing on managing customers’ advertisements, such as getting all advertisements belonging to a customer or updating ad campaign parameters.
  • Fetch: This profile represents deferred (asynchronous) work triggered by opening the notifications tab in Meta’s client applications. Examples of work include updating the total tab badge count or retrieving the set of notifications shown on the first page of the tab.
  • RaaS (Ranking-as-a-Service): This profile represents ranking of items, such as posts in a user’s feed.

Fetch is actually interesting. The Meta datacenters backend is pretty tightly connected/coordinated with the mobile devices. Of course mobile requests are served by datacenter backend, but I had read in another place that when shedding load, Meta first informs/changes mobile client settings to degrade those services so they won't bog down the datacenters with requests.

Ok, back to the findings.
 
Finding F4:  Trace sizes vary depending on workflows' high-level behaviors, but most are small (containing only a few service blocks). Traces are generally wide (services call many other services), and shallow in depth (length of caller/callee branches).


Finding F5: Root Ingress IDs do not predict trace properties. At the level of parent/child relationships, parents’ Ingress IDs are predictive of the set of children Ingress IDs the parent will call in at least 50% of executions. But, it is not very predictive of parents’ total number of RPC calls or concurrency among RPC calls. Adding children sets’ Ingress IDs to parent Ingress IDs more accurately predicts concurrency of RPC calls.


Finding F6: Many call paths in the traces are prematurely terminated due to rate limiting, dropped records, or non-instrumented services like databases. Few of these call paths can be reconstructed (those known to terminate at databases) while the majority are unrecoverable. Deeper call paths are disproportionately terminated.

What intrigued me was the solitary mention of memcache in this paper, which is peculiar given its prominence at Meta. In contrast, the Alibaba trace paper highlighted memcache's significance, revealing that in call graphs with over 40 microservices, approximately 50% of the microservices were Memcacheds (MCs).

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Hints for Distributed Systems Design

-
This is with apologies to Butler Lampson, who published the " Hints for computer system design " paper 40 years ago in SOSP'83. I don't claim to match that work of course. I just thought I could draft this post to organize my thinking about designing distributed systems and get feedback from others. I start with the same  disclaimer Lampson gave. These hints are not novel, not foolproof recipes, not laws of design, not precisely formulated, and not always appropriate. They are just hints.  They are context dependent, and some of them may be controversial. That being said, I have seen these hints successfully applied in distributed systems design throughout my 25 years in the field, starting from the theory of distributed systems (98-01), immersing into the practice of wireless sensor networks (01-11), and working on cloud computing systems both in the academia and industry ever since. These heuristic principles have been applied knowingly or unknowingly and has proven
Read more >>

Learning about distributed systems: where to start?

-
This is definitely not a "learn distributed systems in 21 days" post. I recommend a principled, from the foundations-up, studying of distributed systems, which will take a good three months in the first pass, and many more months to build competence after that. If you are practical and coding oriented you may not like my advice much. You may object saying, "Shouldn't I learn distributed systems with coding and hands on? Why can I not get started by deploying a Hadoop cluster, or studying the Raft code." I think that is the wrong way to go about learning distributed systems, because seeing similar code and programming language constructs will make you think this is familiar territory, and will give you a false sense of security. But, nothing can be further from the truth. Distributed systems need radically different software than centralized systems do.  --A. Tannenbaum This quotation is literally the first sentence in my distributed systems syllabus. Inst
Read more >>

Making database systems usable

-
Image
C. J. Date's Sigmod 1983 keynote, "Database Usability", was prescient. Usability is the most important thing to the customers. They care less about impressive benchmarks or clever algorithms, and more about whether they can operate and use a database efficiently to query, update, analyze, and persist their data with minimal headache. (BTW, does anyone have a link to the contents of this Sigmod'83 talk? There is no transcript around, except for this short abstract .) The paper we cover today is from Sigmod 2007. It takes on the database usability problem raised in that 1983 keynote head-on, and calls out that the king is still naked.  Let's give some context for the year 2007. Yes, XML format was still popular then. The use-case in the paper is XQuery. The paper does not contain any  reference to json. MongoDB would be released in 2009 with the document model; and that seems to be great timing for some of the usability pains mentioned in the paper! Web 2.0 was in
Read more >>

Looming Liability Machines (LLMs)

-
As part of our zoom reading group ( wow, 4.5 years old now ), we discussed a paper that uses LLMs for automatic root cause analysis (RCA) for cloud incidents. This was a pretty straightforward application of LLMs. The proposed system employs an LLM to match incoming incidents to incident handlers based on their alert types, predicts the incident's root cause category, and provides an explanatory narrative. The only customization is through prompt-engineering. Since this is a custom domain, I think a more principled and custom-designed  machine learning system would be more appropriate rather than adopting LLMs. Anyways, the use of LLMs for RCAs spooked me vicerally. I couldn't find the exact words during the paper discussion, but I can articulate this better now. Let me explain. RCA is serious business Root cause analysis (RCA) is the process of identifying the underlying causes of a problem/incident, rather than just addressing its symptoms. One RCA heuristic is asking 5 Why&#
Read more >>

Foundational distributed systems papers

-
I talked about the importance of reading foundational papers last week. To followup, here is my compilation of foundational papers in the distributed systems area. (I focused on the core distributed systems area, and did not cover networking, security, distributed ledgers, verification work etc. I even left out distributed transactions, I hope to cover them at a later date.)  I classified the papers by subject, and listed them in chronological order. I also listed expository papers and blog posts at the end of each section. Time and State in Distributed Systems Time, Clocks, and the Ordering of Events in a Distributed System. Leslie Lamport, Commn. of the ACM,  1978. Distributed Snapshots: Determining Global States of a Distributed System. K. Mani Chandy Leslie Lamport, ACM Transactions on Computer Systems, 1985. Virtual Time and Global States of Distributed Systems.  Mattern, F. 1988. Practical uses of synchronized clocks in distributed systems. B. Liskov, 1991. Expository papers
Read more >>

Advice to the young

-
Image
I notice I haven't written any advice posts recently. Here is a collection of my advice posts pre 2020. I've been feeling all this elderly wisdom pent up in me, ready to pour at any moment. So here it goes. Get ready to quench your thirst from my fount of wisdom. No man, think for yourself, only get what works for you. It is called foundations, not theory Foundations of computer science (or rather any field of study) are the most important topics you can learn. These lay down the frame of thinking/perspective for that area of study. Yet, I am saddened to hear these called as "theory", and labeled as "unpractical". This couldn't be farther from the truth. Take a look at how I recommend studying distributed systems . Don't you dare call this "theory" and "unpractical". This lays the bedrock that you build your practice on. Don't skimp on the foundations. Don't build your home on quicksand. Keep your hands dirty, your mind cl
Read more >>

Linearizability: A Correctness Condition for Concurrent Objects

-
Image
This paper is from Herlihy and Wing appeared in ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems 1990. This is the canonical reference for the linearizability definition. I had not read this paper in detail before, so I thought it would be good to go to the source to see if there are additional delightful surprises in the original text. Hence, this post. I will dive into a technical analysis of the paper first, and then discuss some of my takes toward the end. I had written an accessible explanation of linearizability earlier; you may want to read that first. I will assume an understanding of linearizability to keep this review at reasonable length. Introduction I love how the old papers just barge in with the model, without bothered by pleasantries such as motivation of the problem. These are the first two sentences of the introduction. "A concurrent system consists of a collection of sequential processes that communicate through shared typed objects . This model encompass
Read more >>

Scalable OLTP in the Cloud: What’s the BIG DEAL?

-
Image
This paper is from Pat Helland, the apostate philosopher of database systems, overall a superb person, and a good friend of mine. The paper appeared this week at CIDR'24. (Check out the program for other interesting papers). The motivating question behind this work is: " What are the asymptotic limits to scale for cloud OLTP (OnLine Transaction Processing) systems? " Pat says that the CIDR 2023 paper "Is Scalable OLTP in the Cloud a Solved Problem?" prompted this question.  The answer to the question? Pat says that the answer lies in the joint responsibility of database and the application. If you know of Pat's work, which I have summarized several in this blog , you would know that Pat has been advocating along these lines before. But this paper provides a very crisp, specific, concrete answer. Read on for my summary of the paper. Disclaimer: This is a wisdom and technical information/detail packed 13-page paper, so I will try my best to summarize the sa
Read more >>

Understanding the Performance Implications of Storage-Disaggregated Databases

-
Image
Storage-compute disaggregation in databases has emerged as a pivotal architecture in cloud environments, as evidenced by Amazon ( Aurora ), Microsoft ( Socrates ), Google (AlloyDB), Alibaba ( PolarDB ), and Huawei (Taurus). This approach decouples compute from storage, allowing for independent and elastic scaling of compute and storage resources. It provides fault-tolerance at the storage level. You can then share the storage for other services, such as adding read-only replicas for the databases. You can even use the storage level for easier sharding of your database. Finally, you can also use this for exporting a changelog asynchronously to feed into peripheral cloud services, such as analytics. Disaggregated architecture was the topic of Sigmod 23 panel . I think this quote summarizes the industry's thinking on the topic. "Disaggregated architecture is here, and is not going anywhere. In a disaggregated architecture, storage is fungible, and computing scales independently.
Read more >>

Designing Data Intensive Applications (DDIA) Book

-
Image
We started reading this book as part of Alex Petrov's book club . We just got started, so you can join us, by joining the discord channel above. We meet Wednesday's 11am Eastern Time.  Previously we had read transaction processing book by Grey and Reuters. This page links to my summaries of that book. Chp 1. Reliable, Scalable, and Maintainable Applications I love the diagrams opening each chapter. Beautiful! The first chapter consists of warm up stuff. It talks about the definitions of reliabilty, scalability, and maintainability. It is still engaging, because  it is written with an educator and technical blogger voice, rather than a dry academic voice. This book came out on 2017. Martin is working on the new version. So if you have comments for things to focus on for the new version, it would be helpful to collect them in a document and email it to Martin. For example, I am curious about how the below paragraph from the Preface will get revised with 8 more years of hindsight:
Read more >>