I'm developing a Django app which relies heavily on Celery task scheduling, using Redis as backend. Tasks can be set to run at a large periods of time, as well as in a few seconds/minutes.
I've read about Redis visibility timeout and consequences of scheduling tasks with timedelta greater than visibility timeout (I'm also in the process of dealing with it in a previous project), so I'm interested if there's anything neater than my solution, which is to have another "helper" task run 5 minutes before the "main" one needs to be executed, scheduling the "main" task to run in required time, storing task id in DB, and then checking in "main" task if the stored task id is the one that is being run. The last part (with task id storing) is required as multiple runs of "helper" task could spawn a lot of "main" task instances, but with this approach each will have different task id.
I really hate how that approach sounds and how it works, as if the task is scheduled to be run a month from current time, "helper" and "main" tasks are executed up to a hundred times.
I also know that it's an open issue, so I'm interested in more a neat workaround than a solution itself.
Having tested available options, in my opinion only using RabbitMQ as broker solves the whole problem.
Although it's a viable option for me, lack of some of redis configuration parameters (e.g. pool size) makes it unusable for those who are using hosting services with some limit on opened broker connection.
Related
MapReduce tasks are run within a parent pipeline, and of course we all know they can run for a very long time. But at the same time, the pipeline api documents that a pipeline must complete within 10 minutes (https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/appengine-pipelines/wiki/Python). What is the proper way to understand this?
Thanks.
That pipeline documentation is really old... when it was written, tasks were limited to 10-mins. Now you can configure a non-default modules (used to be called a "backend") using basic/manual scaling that will allow a task to run for 24hrs
https://cloud.google.com/appengine/docs/python/modules/#Python_Instance_scaling_and_class
(NOTE: if you run a task on an auto-scaled module, it will still be limited to 10-mins)
The entire pipeline doesn't have to be limited to 24hrs though. The "root" pipeline (the first task that runs) can yield many child pipelines, and those each can further yield other pipelines... each pipeline is a task that has to run within the allotted time (10mins or 24hrs)... when it is done, it signals the parent to wake-up and finish... so the overall pipeline could run for days or months or whatever
We have our app split into two modules, one for the front-end (default, auto-scaled) that handles web requests, and one for the "back end" (basic scaling) that runs all of our tasks
The maximum amount of time the pollForActivityTask method stays open polling for requests is 60 seconds. I am currently scheduling a cron job every minute to call my activity worker file so that my activity worker machine is constantly polling for jobs.
Is this the correct way to have continuous queue coverage?
The way that the Java Flow SDK does it and the way that you create an ActivityWorker, give it a tasklist, domain, activity implementations, and a few other settings. You set both the setPollThreadCount and setTaskExecutorSize. The polling threads long poll and then hand over work to the executor threads to avoid blocking further polling. You call start on the ActivityWorker to boot it up and when wanting to shutdown the workers, you can call one of the shutdown methods (usually best to call shutdownAndAwaitTermination).
Essentially your workers are long lived and need to deal with a few factors:
New versions of Activities
Various tasklists
Scaling independently on tasklist, activity implementations, workflow workers, host sizes, etc.
Handle error cases and deal with polling
Handle shutdowns (in case of deployments and new versions)
I ended using a solution where I had another script file that is called by a cron job every minute. This file checks whether an activity worker is already running in the background (if so, I assume a workflow execution is already being processed on the current server).
If no activity worker is there, then the previous long poll has completed and we launch the activity worker script again. If there is an activity worker already present, then the previous poll found a workflow execution and started processing so we refrain from launching another activity worker.
Django produces multiple Celery tasks through chains in one script run (f.e. if / is opened in browser, 1000 tasks are called by delay method).
I need something that will restrict new task generation, if tasks, queued in previous script run, are still running.
You need a distributed lock for this, which celery doesn't offer natively.
For these kinds of locks I've found redis.Lock useful to most cases. If you need a semaphore, you can use redis' atomic incr/decr functions along with some kind of watchdog mechanism to ensure your processes are still running.
You can restrict the number of tasks of one type running at the same time by setting:
rate_limit = “1000/m”
=> only 1000 tasks of this type can run per minute.
(see http://docs.celeryproject.org/en/latest/userguide/tasks.html#list-of-options)
1) I am currently working on a web application that exposes a REST api and uses Django and Celery to handle request and solve them. For a request in order to get solved, there have to be submitted a set of celery tasks to an amqp queue, so that they get executed on workers (situated on other machines). Each task is very CPU intensive and takes very long (hours) to finish.
I have configured Celery to use also amqp as results-backend, and I am using RabbitMQ as Celery's broker.
Each task returns a result that needs to be stored afterwards in a DB, but not by the workers directly. Only the "central node" - the machine running django-celery and publishing tasks in the RabbitMQ queue - has access to this storage DB, so the results from the workers have to return somehow on this machine.
The question is how can I process the results of the tasks execution afterwards? So after a worker finishes, the result from it gets stored in the configured results-backend (amqp), but now I don't know what would be the best way to get the results from there and process them.
All I could find in the documentation is that you can either check on the results's status from time to time with:
result.state
which means that basically I need a dedicated piece of code that runs periodically this command, and therefore keeps busy a whole thread/process only with this, or to block everything with:
result.get()
until a task finishes, which is not what I wish.
The only solution I can think of is to have on the "central node" an extra thread that runs periodically a function that basically checks on the async_results returned by each task at its submission, and to take action if the task has a finished status.
Does anyone have any other suggestion?
Also, since the backend-results' processing takes place on the "central node", what I aim is to minimize the impact of this operation on this machine.
What would be the best way to do that?
2) How do people usually solve the problem of dealing with the results returned from the workers and put in the backend-results? (assuming that a backend-results has been configured)
I'm not sure if I fully understand your question, but take into account each task has a task id. If tasks are being sent by users you can store the ids and then check for the results using json as follows:
#urls.py
from djcelery.views import is_task_successful
urlpatterns += patterns('',
url(r'(?P<task_id>[\w\d\-\.]+)/done/?$', is_task_successful,
name='celery-is_task_successful'),
)
Other related concept is that of signals each finished task emits a signal. A finnished task will emit a task_success signal. More can be found on real time proc.
The Heroku Scheduler documentation says:
Scheduled jobs are meant to execute short running tasks or enqueue longer running tasks into a background job queue. Anything that takes longer than a couple of minutes to complete should use a worker process to run
If the Scheduler starts a new dyno for these jobs and the cost is the same for a dyno vs. a worker, what is the advantage to adding a task to the queue and having a worker process run it?
It is an architectural best practice to only schedule, and not execute, interval tasks on the scheduler task (or your own custom clock process). The motivation for this is explained in the scheduled jobs article but, to summarize, you want your scheduler process/task to be as light-weight as possible since there should only be one of them. When you start overloading scheduling with execution you often run into schedule conflicts and erratic behavior.
Imagine that one interval job hangs, or takes much longer than expected. If your intervals are tight enough this will start causing a backlog and future intervals could be pushed back or skipped all together.
Also, it is just wise to keep component responsibilities as separated as possible - not having a single component be responsible for orthogonal tasks. This is a common design practice which is reflected in the scheduled job use-case by keeping scheduling and execution independent.
Best practices aside, if you're in development or bootstrap mode and understand the consequences stated above you can certainly choose to ignore such advice and run everything within the scheduler task. Just be careful for hard to debug job conflicts or apparent duplication.
Well, I think this is just a recommendation. If you have a task which is ran by Scheduler and you'll run this task manually (in the Heroku administration), you'll get an error - this error is caused by timeout (because each task has limit 30s). But in fact, this task will not be interrupted - the task is gonna be finished correctly.
If you have 1 dyno, so this one dyno use Heroku for your application. If you run some scheduled job, so this dyno gonna be taken be the Scheduler -> if you have long-time running task, your page will be "idle" (not correctly working till the time, when the scheduled job will be finished).