mirror of
https://github.com/taigrr/nats.docs
synced 2025-01-18 04:03:23 -08:00
add subject mapping
Signed-off-by: Colin Sullivan <colin@synadia.com>
This commit is contained in:
parent
94ac133723
commit
9f3d076c7b
@ -100,6 +100,7 @@
|
||||
* [Monitoring](nats-server/configuration/monitoring.md)
|
||||
* [MQTT](nats-server/configuration/mqtt/README.md)
|
||||
* [Configuration](nats-server/configuration/mqtt/mqtt_config.md)
|
||||
* [Subject Mapping and Traffic Shaping](nats-server/configuration/subject_mapping/subject_mapping.md)
|
||||
* [System Events](nats-server/configuration/sys_accounts/README.md)
|
||||
* [System Events & Decentralized JWT Tutorial](nats-server/configuration/sys_accounts/sys_accounts.md)
|
||||
* [WebSocket](nats-server/configuration/websocket/README.md)
|
||||
|
145
nats-server/configuration/subject_mapping/subject_mapping.md
Normal file
145
nats-server/configuration/subject_mapping/subject_mapping.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,145 @@
|
||||
# Subject Mapping and Traffic Shaping
|
||||
|
||||
_Supported since NATS Server version 2.2_
|
||||
|
||||
Subject mapping is a very powerful feature of the NATS server, useful for
|
||||
canary deployments, A/B testing, chaos testing, and migrating to a new
|
||||
subject namespace.
|
||||
|
||||
The `mappings` stanza can occur at the top level to apply
|
||||
to the global account or be scoped within a specific account.
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
mappings = {
|
||||
|
||||
# Simple direct mapping. Messages published to foo are mapped to bar.
|
||||
foo: bar
|
||||
|
||||
# remapping tokens can be done with $<N> representing token position.
|
||||
# In this example bar.a.b would be mapped to baz.b.a.
|
||||
bar.*.*: baz.$2.$1
|
||||
|
||||
# You can scope mappings to to a particular cluster
|
||||
foo.cluster.scoped : [
|
||||
{ destination: bar.cluster.scoped, weight:100%, cluster: us-west-1 }
|
||||
]
|
||||
|
||||
# Use weighted mapping for canary testing or A/B testing. Change dynamically
|
||||
# at any time with a server reload.
|
||||
myservice.request: [
|
||||
{ destination: myservice.request.v1, weight: 90% },
|
||||
{ destination: myservice.request.v2, weight: 10% }
|
||||
]
|
||||
|
||||
# A testing example of wildcard mapping balanced across two subjects.
|
||||
# 20% of the traffic is mapped to a service in QA coded to fail.
|
||||
myservice.test.*: [
|
||||
{ destination: myservice.test.$1, weight: 80% },
|
||||
{ destination: myservice.test.fail.$1, weight: 20% }
|
||||
]
|
||||
|
||||
# A chaos testing trick that introduces 50% artificial message loss of
|
||||
# messages published to foo.loss
|
||||
foo.loss.>: [ { destination: foo.loss.>, weight: 50% } ]
|
||||
}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Simple Mapping
|
||||
|
||||
The example of `foo:bar` is straightforward. All messages the server receives on subject
|
||||
`foo` are remapped and can be received by clients subscribed to `bar`.
|
||||
|
||||
## Subject Token Reordering
|
||||
|
||||
Wildcard tokens may be referenced via `$<position>`. For example, the first wildcard
|
||||
token is $1, the second is $2, etc. Referencing these tokens can allow for reordering.
|
||||
|
||||
With this mapping:
|
||||
```
|
||||
bar.*.*: baz.$2.$1
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Messages that were originally published to `bar.a.b` are remapped in the server to `baz.b.a`.
|
||||
Messages arriving at the server on `bar.one.two` would be mapped to `baz.two.one`, and so forth.
|
||||
|
||||
## Weighted Mappings for A/B Testing or Canary Releases.
|
||||
|
||||
Traffic can be split by percentage from one subject to multiple subjects. Here's an example
|
||||
for canary deployments, starting with version 1 of your service.
|
||||
|
||||
Applications would make requests of a service at `myservice.requests`. The responders doing the
|
||||
work of the server would subscribe to `myservice.requests.v1`. Your configuration would look like
|
||||
this:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
myservice.requests: [
|
||||
{ destination: myservice.requests.v1, weight: 100% }
|
||||
]
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
All requests to `myservice.requests` will go to version 1 of your service.
|
||||
|
||||
When version 2 comes along, you'll want to test it with a canary deployment. Version 2 would
|
||||
subscribe to `myservice.requests.v2`. Launch instances of your service (don't forget
|
||||
about queue subscribers and load balancing).
|
||||
|
||||
Update the configuration file to redirect some portion of the requests made to `myservice.requests`
|
||||
to version 2 of your service. In this case we'll use 2%.
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
myservice.requests: [
|
||||
{ destination: myservice.requests.v1, weight: 98% },
|
||||
{ destination: myservice.requests.v2, weight: 2% }
|
||||
]
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
You can [reload](../../nats_admin/signals.md) the server at this point to
|
||||
make the changes with zero downtime. After reloading, 2% of your requests
|
||||
will be serviced by the new version.
|
||||
|
||||
Once you've determined Version 2 stable switch 100% of the traffic over and
|
||||
reload the server with a new configuration.
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
myservice.requests: [
|
||||
{ destination: myservice.requests.v2, weight: 100% }
|
||||
]
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Now shutdown the version 1 instances of your service.
|
||||
|
||||
## Traffic Shaping in Testing
|
||||
|
||||
Traffic shaping is useful in testing. You might have a service that runs in QA
|
||||
that simulates failure scenarios which could receive 20% of the traffic to test
|
||||
the service requestor.
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
myservice.requests.*: [
|
||||
{ destination: myservice.requests.$1, weight: 80% },
|
||||
{ destination: myservice.requests.fail.$1, weight: 20% }
|
||||
]
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Artificial Loss
|
||||
|
||||
Alternatively, introduce loss into your system for chaos testing by
|
||||
mapping a percentage of traffic to the same subject. In this
|
||||
drastic example, 50% of the traffic published to `foo.loss.a` would
|
||||
be artificially dropped by the server.
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
foo.loss.>: [ { destination: foo.loss.>, weight: 50% } ]
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
You can both split and introduce loss for testing. Here, 90% of requests
|
||||
would go to your service, 8% would go to a service simulating failure conditions,
|
||||
and the unaccounted for 2% would simulate message loss.
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
myservice.requests: [
|
||||
{ destination: myservice.requests.v3, weight: 90% },
|
||||
{ destination: myservice.requests.v3.fail, weight: 8% }
|
||||
# the remaining 2% is "lost"
|
||||
]
|
||||
```
|
Loading…
x
Reference in New Issue
Block a user