Alternatives to Bull

We decided to use AWS Lambda for several serverless tasks such as

• Managing AWS backups
• Processing emails received on Amazon SES and stored to Amazon S3 and notified via Amazon SNS, so as to push a message on our Redis so our Sidekiq Rails workers can process inbound emails
• Pushing some relevant Amazon CloudWatch metrics and alarms to Slack

In 2012 we made the very difficult decision to entirely re-engineer our existing monolithic LAMP application from the ground up in order to address some growing concerns about it's long term viability as a platform.

Full application re-write is almost always never the answer, because of the risks involved. However the situation warranted drastic action as it was clear that the existing product was going to face severe scaling issues. We felt it better address these sooner rather than later and also take the opportunity to improve the international architecture and also to refactor the database in. order that it better matched the changes in core functionality.

PostgreSQL was chosen for its reputation as being solid ACID compliant database backend, it was available as an offering AWS RDS service which reduced the management overhead of us having to configure it ourselves. In order to reduce read load on the primary database we implemented an Elasticsearch layer for fast and scalable search operations. Synchronisation of these indexes was to be achieved through the use of Sidekiq's Redis based background workers on Amazon ElastiCache. Again the AWS solution here looked to be an easy way to keep our involvement in managing this part of the platform at a minimum. Allowing us to focus on our core business.

Rails ls was chosen for its ability to quickly get core functionality up and running, its MVC architecture and also its focus on Test Driven Development using RSpec and Selenium with Travis CI providing continual integration. We also liked Ruby for its terse, clean and elegant syntax. Though YMMV on that one!

Unicorn was chosen for its continual deployment and reputation as a reliable application server, nginx for its reputation as a fast and stable reverse-proxy. We also took advantage of the Amazon CloudFront CDN here to further improve performance by caching static assets globally.

We tried to strike a balance between having control over management and configuration of our core application with the convenience of being able to leverage AWS hosted services for ancillary functions (Amazon SES , Amazon SQS Amazon Route 53 all hosted securely inside Amazon VPC of course!).

Whilst there is some compromise here with potential vendor lock in, the tasks being performed by these ancillary services are no particularly specialised which should mitigate this risk. Furthermore we have already containerised the stack in our development using Docker environment, and looking to how best to bring this into production - potentially using Amazon EC2 Container Service

I used Kafka originally because it was mandated as part of the top-level IT requirements at a Fortune 500 client. What I found was that it was orders of magnitude more complex ...and powerful than my daily Beanstalkd , and far more flexible, resilient, and manageable than RabbitMQ.

So for any case where utmost flexibility and resilience are part of the deal, I would use Kafka again. But due to the complexities involved, for any time where this level of scalability is not required, I would probably just use Beanstalkd for its simplicity.

I tend to find RabbitMQ to be in an uncomfortable middle place between these two extremities.

delayed_job is a great Rails background job library for new projects, as it only uses what you already have: a relational database. We happily used it during the company’s first two years.

But it started to falter as our web and database transactions significantly grew. Our app interacted with users via SMS texts sent inside background jobs. Because the delayed_job daemon ran every couple seconds, this meant that users often waited several long seconds before getting text replies, which was not acceptable. Moreover, job processing was done inside AWS Elastic Beanstalk web instances, which were already under stress and not meant to handle jobs.

We needed a fast background job system that could process jobs in near real-time and integrate well with AWS. Sidekiq is a fast and popular Ruby background job library, but it does not leverage the Elastic Beanstalk worker architecture, and you have to maintain a Redis instance.

We ended up choosing active-elastic-job, which seamlessly integrates with worker instances and Amazon SQS. SQS is a fast queue and you don’t need to worry about infrastructure or scaling, as AWS handles it for you.

We noticed significant performance gains immediately after making the switch.

#BackgroundProcessing

We use Sidekiq to process millions of Ruby background jobs a day under normal loads. We sometimes process more than that when running one-off backfill tasks.

With so many jobs, it wouldn't really make sense to use delayed_job, as it would put our main database under unnecessary load, which would make it a bottleneck with most DB queries serving jobs and not end users. I suppose you could create a separate DB just for jobs, but that can be a hassle. Sidekiq uses a separate Redis instance so you don't have this problem. And it is very performant!

I also like that its free version comes "batteries included" with:

• A web monitoring UI that provides some nice stats.
• An API that can come in handy for one-off tasks, like changing the queue of certain already enqueued jobs.

Sidekiq is a pleasure to use. All our engineers love it!