Tuesday, January 31, 2006

Tibco RV vs Tibco EMS

A lot of people are familiar with the Tibco RV (Rendezvous) product. This product is around 20 years old and powers many mission critical systems across different domains. Tibco has another product called Tibco EMS (Enterprise messaging Server) which is based on the JMS hub-and-spoke model and is quite popular in EAI. So what's the difference btw the two products? - When to use what ?

First we need to understand the differences in the architecture between the two products. Tibco RV is based on the multicast publish/subscribe model, where as Tibco EMS is based on the hub-and-spoke model.

Multicast is the delivery of information to a group of destinations simultaneously using the most efficient strategy to deliver the messages over each link of the network only once and only create copies when the links to the destinations split. By comparison with multicast, conventional point-to-single-point delivery is called unicast. When unicast is used to deliver to several recipients, a copy of the data is sent from the sender to each recipient, resulting in inefficient and badly scalable duplication at the sending side.

Googled out a white paper that contained some good architecture details about Tibco RV. The link is here.
Excerpt from the article:
TIB/RV is based on a distributed architecture . An installation of TIB/RV resides on each host on the network.Hence it eliminates the bottlenecks and single points offailures could be handled. It allows programs to sendmessages in a reliable, certified and transactional manner,depending on the requirements. Messaging can be delivered in point-to-point or publish/subscribe, synchronously orasynchronously, locally delivered or sent via WAN or theInternet. Rendezvous messages are self-describing and platform independent.
RVD (Rendezvous Daemon) is a background process that sits in between the RVprogram and the network. It is responsible for the deliveryand the acquisition of messages, either in point-to-point or publish/subscribe message domain. It is the most important component of the whole TIB/RV.Theoretically, there is an installation of RVD on every host on the network. However, it is possible to connect to a remote daemon, which sacrifices performance and transparencies. The RV Sender program passes the message and destination topic to RVD. RVD then broadcasts this message using User Data Packet(UDP) to the entire network. All subscribing computers with RVDs on the network will receive this message. RVD will filter the messages which non-subscribers will not be notified of the message. Therefore only subscriber programs to the particular topic will get the messages.


So when to use Tibco RV and when to use Tibco EMS (or any other hub-and-spoke model). An article at http://eaiblueprint.com/3.0/?p=17 describes the trade-offs between the two models:

Excerpt:
In my opinion, the multicast-based publish/subscribe messaging is an excellent solution for near-real-time message dissemination when 1 to 'very-many' delivery capabilities matter. RV originated on the trading floors as a vehicle for disseminating financial information such as stock prices.

However, in most EAI cases the opposite requirements are true:
‘Cardinality’ of message delivery is 1-1, 1-2; 1 to-very-many is a rare case. With exception of ‘consolidated application’ integration model (near real time request reply with timeout heuristics), reliability of message delivery takes priority over performance. Effectively, in most EAI implementations of RV, RV ends up simulating a queueing system using its ‘Certified Delivery’ mechanism. While this works, it is a flawed solution (see the discussion of Certified Messaging below).

Reliable delivery is a ‘native’ function of hub-and-spoke solutions. The multicast solution must be augmented with local persistence mechanism and re-try mechanism.
While RV offers reliable delivery (queueing) referred to as Certified Messaging, this solution is flawed in that: Inherently, reliability of CM is not comparable to the hub-and-spoke topologies as the data is stored in local file systems using non-transactional disk operations, as opposed to centralized database in hub-and-spoke topology. Corruption of RV ‘ledger files’ is not a rare case that leads to loss of data.
Temporal de-coupling is not the case. While a message can be queue for a later delivery (in case the target system is unavailable), for a message to be actually delivered both system must be up at the same time.

RV / CM lacks a basic facility of any queueing system: a queue browser that is frequently required for production support (for example, in order to remove an offending message). In contrast, MQ Series offers an out-of the box queue browser and a host of third party solutions. Transactional messaging is difficult to implement in multicast environment. TIBCO offers a transactional augmentation of RV (RVTX) that guarantees a 1-and-onlu-once delivery; however, this solution essentially converts RV into a hub-and-spoke system. Consequently, very few RV implementations are transactional.

Having said that, the shortcomings of hub and spoke include:
  • Single point of failure, when the hub is down, everything is down. MQ Series addresses this problem by providing high-reliability clustering.
  • Non-native publish/subscriber (publish/subscribe is emulated programmatically ) that results in reduced performance, especially in 1-to-very many delivery
  • Overhead of hub management (a need for administering hub objects: queues, channels, etc).
  • Inferior performance, especially in 1 to-many publish/subscribe and request/reply cases.

These shortcomings — in my opinion — do not outweigh benefits and for that reason MQ Series / hub-and-spoke solutions constitute a better choice for most EAI problem. Multicast-based publish subscribe is better left to its niches (high volume, high performance, accepter unreliability, 1 to very many).