Today I wanted to focus on some of the popular anti-patterns, many Akka.NET newcomers tend to use. I'm talking about using Ask method for communicating between actors. I want to get a closer look into what Ask really does underneath and why it's not a good choice for communicating between actors... for most of the time.

What is Ask and how does it work?

Ask is one of the extension methods for IActorRef interface, allowing to communicate between actors. Unlike Tell - which simply sends a message with fire and forget semantics - Ask is request/response based communication pattern. It sends a message to another actor, expecting it to respond with another message, and returning a task asynchronously notifying when the response will come back.

To understand, why Ask is usually a bad pattern for inter-actors communication, you need to know how does it work first.

As you may remember, actor communication is message-based. Additionally in Akka to buffer possible message bursts, each actor have its own mailbox. Therefore sender of the message always append it at the end of the recipient's mailbox, while the recipient is processing messages synchronously taking them off the mailbox, one by one. What's also important here, it won't take any new messages until the current one has been processed.

While for most of the time this is good approach (and can be performing better than i.e. SEDA-based solutions), it's kinda problematic for request/response pattern. Why? Since we need to correlate request with the response, after sending the request, we need to either:

  1. Scan the entire mailbox queue, looking for the response. The longer the mailbox (so the higher the congestion), the longer it will take to find a response. Also in this case mailbox must be able to pick a message from the middle of a queue, which would be not without limitations on the mailbox implementation itself.
  2. Create a temporary listener, which is able to receive the response. Moreover since communication may be proceed over the wire, a listener must encapsulate location transparency feature of actors.

Akka follows the second approach. This means that each Ask call is actually allocating a special kind of lightweight listener-actor. Such design makes an Ask a lot heavier - and we're talking about dozens times heavier - operation than using simple Tell. Good part is that thanks to such choice Tell still can be fast as hell.

Continuous blocking

As emphasized earlier, one of the actor's attributes is synchronous message processing. It's a great feature, since we no longer need to worry about things like race conditions, locks or blocking... except that request/response is inherently blocking communication pattern. To be clear, I'm not talking here about blocking the thread, as we're able to define async receive methods for actors. What I'm talking about, is blocking an actor itself, which cannot pick any new messages until the response arrives and processing finishes.

Imagine following example:

class MyActor: ReceiveActor  
    public MyActor(IActorRef other)
        Recive<Request>(async request => {
            // this is really BAD practice
            var reply = await other.Ask<Reply>(request, TimeSpan.FromSeconds(30));

In normal conditions, a single Akka.NET actor (v1.0.7) is able to receive up to 3.3mln messages/sec. Ok, even given bad characteristic of Ask, this would be still a fairly high amount (hundreds of thousands msg/sec under local affinity). But what if asked actor will never receive the message (suppose, it has been lost, or a receiver died for some reason)? Well, it will become idle until the timeout will trigger. In case above this mean around 30 sec of unresponsiveness... for anyone sending a message to that actor, not only the asker alone. This could be changed by the reentrancy of actors... which again would reintroduce race conditions in parallel access to actor's state, which is what actors were build to solve on the first place :)

I know that at this point some of you may say "But I really need this response to proceed with my work". Well, as practice shows... most of the time you don't ;) Most of the programmers get used to RPC, because it's inherent part of HTTP protocol. However in message-based systems, it's only one of the many communication patterns. Use your senses, take a look at the world around you, and you will see that most of the information exchange in the real life are not based on request/response. Believe me, once you change your mindset, you'll start to see things in a bigger picture.

NOTE: Another flaw of this particular part of code is that in case of failure on the asked actor's side, this failure is propagated back to requester - this may ultimately cause a cascading failure chain. While crashing an actor usually is not a big deal, don't think of it as a resource-free operation.

If not Ask, then what?

I wanted to describe few cases, where we usually think in terms of RPC, and how to change them into more message-embracing solutions. Take into account, that each case is different and there is no silver bullet here.

Push based events

Lets think about following scenario:

We have a multiplayer game, represented as actor system. We have a single actor representing state of the world, and multiple client-actors - each one working locally on part of that state. Before client proceeds with some action, it must ensure, it has an actual state of the world. Therefore it asks an world-actor for a current state at the beginning of every operation.

While this example is settled in multiplayer game scenario, it's shares many traits with standard business applications (world state ⇒ database). So how can we do that without using request/response model?

Now, change your mindset a little - instead of thinking about asking for current state, let allow the world-actor to notify every interested client with the state change, once it occurs. As result we have living actor system.

Need response? Use Forward + Tell back

Sometimes we may want to send a result of a computation back to the caller. What if that computation is a request chain between multiple different actors.

Imagine that we have 4 actors A, B, C and D. In our scenario A is the requester, that needs to be replied. It sends a message to B, which makes some operations, then asks C to make some more operations, which then also ask D for the same. Once the D finishes, the reply is passed down the call chain back to A. Given Ask as message pattern, we can model that scenario using following image:

Ask pipeline

Now we ended up with 3 temporal allocations (remember that Ask allocates), 6 message passes, and blocking 2 actors (B and C) until the whole request is completed... even thou they don't need participate in it after doing their part.

How can we change that? Use the following scenario:

Forward pipeline

As you may see, we replaced most of the Asks with Forward, but what it actually does? Forward is a special version of Tell, which propagates original message sender. Therefore A will be recognized as a message sender, as long as actors are passing the message using Forward. Thanks to that, D can send a reply directly to A, as other actors are not necessary anymore.

Moreover, because actors B and C don't need to wait for the reply, they are free to proceed other messages in the meantime.

Aggregator pattern

Other case you may think of, is a scatter/gather scenario. We have some group of actors to be requested, then we want to gather all replies and send the aggregated result back.

I've seen people trying to solve that case with combination of multiple Ask requests + Task.WhenAll. However because of weight of Ask (and in more extreme cases weight of Tasks themselves), this is not a performance-wise operation. So what should we do?

We can create a dedicated Aggregator actor, responsible for collecting all results from the requested actors and sending them back to the requester. There are many variants, taking many cases into account, however I think, that one of the most common ones is to:

  • Init an aggregator actor with collection of actors to ask. It'll be responsible for gathering responses for a particular request.
  • Propagate request to all actors through an aggregator.
  • When a reply arrives, remove the sender from the list of actors remaining to answer.
  • Apply receive timeout for safety (so we don't wait for response infinitely).
  • Once all actors have responded or timeout occurred, send aggregated replies back to the original sender and stop aggregator actor.

Following scenario can be represented just like in the code below and be abstracted to generic solution:

class Aggregator<T> : ReceiveActor  
    private IActorRef originalSender;
    private ISet<IActorRef> refs;

    public Aggregator(ISet<IActorRef> refs)
        this.refs = refs;
        // this operation will finish after 30 sec of inactivity
        // (when no new message arrived)
        ReceiveAny(x =>
            originalSender = Sender;
            foreach (var aref in refs) aref.Tell(x);

    private void Aggregating()
        var replies = new List<T>();
        // when timeout occurred, we reply with what we've got so far
        Receive<ReceiveTimeout>(_ => ReplyAndStop(replies));
        Receive<T>(x =>
            if (refs.Remove(Sender)) replies.Add(x);
            if (refs.Count == 0) ReplyAndStop(replies);

    private void ReplyAndStop(List<T> replies)
        originalSender.Tell(new AggregatedReply<T>(replies));

When to use Ask?

After spending so much time writing, how bad usage of Ask is, the time has come to answer the question: so when I should use Ask?

  • First of all, Ask is great to maintain communication with external systems willing to communicate with Akka.NET. This is natural trend, as quite often such systems are in fact RESTfull web services.
  • Other case I can think about, is specific version of scatter/gather scenario, when number of potentially participating actors may vary depending on message parameters and cannot be cached. In that case it's hard to set stop condition for aggregator pattern upfront, so fallback to listener based option seems to be justified.