I have a code that contains a variable that I want to change manually when I want without stopping the main loop neither pause it (with input()). I can't find a library that allows me to set manually in the run, or access the RAM memory to change that value.
for now I set a file watcher that reads the parameters every 1 minutes but this is inefficient way I presume.
I guess you just want to expose API. You did it with files which works but less common. You can use common best practices such as:
HTTP web-server. You can do it quickly with Flask/bottle.
gRPC
pub/sub mechanism - Redis, Kafka (more complicated, requires another storage solution - the DB itself).
I guess that there are tons of other solution but you got the idea. I hope that's what you're looking for.
With those solution you can manually trigger your endpoint and change whatever you want in your application.
Related
I have two Lambda functions written in Python:
Lambda function 1: Gets 'new' data from an API, gets 'old' data from an S3 bucket (if exists), compares the new to the old and creates 3 different lists of dictionaries: inserts, updates, and deletes. Each list is passed to the next lambda function in batches (~6MB) via Lambda invocation using RequestResponse. The full datasets can vary in size from millions of records to 1 or 2.
Lambda function 2: Handles each type of data (insert, update, delete) separately - specific things happen for each type, but eventually each batch is written to MySQL using pymysql executemany.
I can't figure out the best way to handle errors. For example, let's say one of the batches being written contains a single record that has a NULL value for a field that is not allowed to be NULL in the database. That entire batch fails and I have no way of figuring out what was written to the database and what wasn't for that batch. Ideally, a notification would be triggered and the rouge record would be written somewhere where it could be human reviewed - all other records would be successfully written
Ideally, I could use something like the Bisect Batch on Function Failure available in Kinesis Firehose. It will recursively split failed batches into smaller batches and retry them until it has isolated the problematic records. These will then be sent to DLQ if one is configured. However, I don't think Kenesis Firehose will work for me because it doesn't write to RDS and therefore doesn't know which records fail.
This person https://stackoverflow.com/a/58384445/6669829 suggested using execute if executemany fails. Not sure if that will work for the larger batches. But perhaps if I stream the data from S3 instead of invoking via RequestResponse this could work?
This article (AWS Lambda batching) talks about going from Lambda to SQS to Lambda to RDS, but I'm not sure how specifically you can handle errors in that situation. Do you have to send one record at a time?
This blog uses something similar, but I'm still not sure how to adapt this for my use case or if this is even the best solution.
Looking for help in any form I can get; ideas, blog posts, tutorials, videos, etc.
Thank you!
I do have a few suggestions focused on organization, debugging, and resiliency - please keep in mind assumptions are being made about your architecture
Organization
You currently have multiple dependent lambda's that are processing data. When you have a processing flow like this, the complexity of what you're trying to process dictates if you need to utilize an orchestration tool.
I would suggest orchestrating your lambda's via AWS Step Functions
Debugging
At the application level - log anything that isn't PII
Now that you're using an orchestration tool, utilize the error handling of Step Functions along with any business logic in the application to error appropriately if conditions for the next step aren't met
Resiliency
Life happens, things break, incorrect code get's pushed
Design your orchestration to put the failing event(s) your lambdas receive into a processing queue (AWS SQS, Kafka, etc..)- you can reprocess your events or if the events are at fault, DLQ them.
Here's a nice article on the use of orchestration with a design use case - give it a read
Hello I don't think this is in the right place for this question but I don't know where to ask it. I want to make a website and an api for that website using the same SQLAlchemy database would just running them at the same time independently be safe or would this cause corruption from two write happening at the same time.
SQLA is a python wrapper for SQL. It is not it's own database. If you're running your website (perhaps flask?) and managing your api from the same script, you can simply use the same reference to your instance of SQLA. Meaning, when you use SQLA to connect to a database and save to a variable, what is really happening is it saves the connection to a variable, and you continually reference that variable, as opposed to the more inefficient method of creating a new connection every time. So when you say
using the same SQLAlchemy database
I believe you are actually referring to the actual underlying database itself, not the SQLA wrapper/connection to it.
If your website and API are not running in the same script (or even if they are, depending on how your API handles simultaneous requests), you may encounter a race condition, which, according to Wikipedia, is defined as:
the condition of an electronics, software, or other system where the system's substantive behavior is dependent on the sequence or timing of other uncontrollable events. It becomes a bug when one or more of the possible behaviors is undesirable.
This may be what you are referring to when you mentioned
would this cause corruption from two write happening at the same time.
To avoid such situations, when a process accesses a file, (depending on the OS,) check is performed to see if there is a "lock" on that file, and if so, the OS refuses to open that file. A lock is created when a process accesses a file (and there is no other process holding a lock on that file), such as by using with open(filename): and is released when the process no longer holds an open reference to the file (such as when python execution leaves the with open(filename): indentation block.) This may be the real issue you might encounter when using two simultaneous connections to a SQLite db.
However, if you are using something like MySQL, where you connect to a SQL server process, and NOT a file, since there is no direct access to a file, there will be no lock on the database, and you may run in to that nasty race condition in the following made up scenario:
Stack Overflow queries the reputation an account to see if it should be banned due to negative reputation.
AT THE EXACT SAME TIME, Someone upvotes an answer made by that account that sets it one point under the account ban threshold.
The outcome is now determined by the speed of execution of these 2 tasks.
If the upvoter has, say, a slow computer, and the "upvote" does not get processed by StackOverflow before the reputation query completes, the account will be banned. However, if there is some lag on Stack Overflow's end, and the upvote processes before the account query finishes, the account will not get banned.
The key concept behind this example is that all of these steps can occur within fractions of a second, and the outcome depends of the speed of execution on both ends.
To address the issue of data corruption, most databases have a system in place that properly order database read and writes, however, there are still semantic issues that may arise, such as the example given above.
Two applications can use the same database as the DB is a separate application that will be accessed by each flask app.
What you are asking can be done and is the methodology used by many large web applications, specially when the API is written in a different framework than the main application.
Since SQL databases are ACID compliant, they have a system in place to queue the multiple read/write requests put to it and perform them in the correct order while ensuring data reliability.
One question to ask though is whether it is useful to write two separate applications. For most flask-only projects the best approach would be to separate the project using blueprints, having a “main” blueprint and a “api” blueprint.
In my Bottle app running on pythonanywhere, I want objects to be persisted between requests.
If I write something like this:
X = {'count': 0}
#route('/count')
def count():
X['count'] += 1
tpl = SimpleTemplate('Hello {{count}}!')
return tpl.render(count=X['count'])
The count increments, meaning that X persists between requests.
I am currently running this on pythonanywhere, which is a managed service where I have no control over the web server (nginx I presume?) threading, load balancing (if any) etc...
My question is, is this coincidence because it's only using one thread while on minimal load from me doing my tests?
More generally, at which point will this stop working? E.g. I have more than one thread/socket/instance/load-balanced server etc...?
Beyond that, what is my best options to make something like this work (sticking to Bottle) even if I have to move to a barebones server.
Here's what Bottle docs have to say about their request object:
A thread-safe instance of LocalRequest. If accessed from within a request callback, this instance always refers to the current request (even on a multi-threaded server).
But I don't fully understand what that means, or where global variables like the one I used stand with regards to multi-threading.
TL;DR: You'll probably want to use an external database to store your state.
If your application is tiny, and you're planning to always have exactly one server process running, then your current approach can work; "all" you need to do is acquire a lock around every (!) access to the shared state (the dict X in your sample code). (I put "all" in scare quotes there because it's likely to become more complicated than it sounds at first.)
But, since you're asking about multithreading, I'll assume that your application is more than a toy, meaning that you plan to receive substantial traffic and/or want to handle multiple requests concurrently. In this case, you'll want multiple processes, which means that your approach--storing state in memory--cannot work. Memory is not shared across processes. The (general) way to share state across processes is to store the state externally, e.g. in a database.
Are you familiar with Redis? That'd be on my short list of candidates.
I go the answers by contacting PythonAnywhere support, who had this to say:
When you run a website on a free PythonAnywhere account, just
one process handles all of your requests -- so a global variable like
the one you use there will be fine. But as soon as you want to scale
up, and get (say) a hacker account, then you'll have multiple processes
(not, not threads) -- and of course each one will have its own global
variables, so things will go wrong.
So that part deals with the PythonAnywhere specifics on why it works, and when it would stop working on there.
The answer to the second part, about how to share variables between multiple Bottle processes, I also got from their support (most helpful!) once they understood that a database would not work well in this situation.
Different processes cannot of course share variables, and the most viable solution would be to:
write your own kind of caching server to handle keeping stuff in memory [...] You'd have one process that ran all of the time, and web API requests would access it somehow (an internal REST API?). It could maintain stuff in memory [...]
Ps: I didn't expect other replies to tell me to store state in a database, I figured that the fact I'm asking this means I have a good reason not to use a database, apologies for time wasted!
I am currently developing a data processing web server(linux) using python flask.
The general work flow is:
Get an input file from the user (handled by python flask)
Flask passes this input file to a java program
Java program processes this input file, saves the outputs (multiple files) on the server.
Flask calls another python script which will process these outputs to get the final result and return the result back to the client.
The problem is: between step 3 and step 4, there exist some intermediate files, this would not have been a problem at all if this is a local program. but as a server program, When more than one clients access this program, they could get unexpected result generated by input that is provided by another user who is using the web program at the same time.
From the point I see it, this is kind of a mutual exclusion problem on file access. I have had problems with mutual exclusion problems on threads before, I solved some of them using thread locks such as like synchronization in java and lock in pythons, but I am not sure what to do when it comes to files instead of threads.
It occurred to me that maybe I canspawn different copies of files based on different clients. But as I understand, the HTTP is stateless so you can't really know who is accessing the server. I don't want to add a login system and a user database to achieve this purpose as I sense there is a much simpler and better way to resolve this problem.
I have been looking for a good solution these days but haven't found an ideal one so I am looking for some advice here. Any suggestions will be highly appreciated. If you can suggest a viable solution, please feel free to provide me with your name so I can add you to the thank list of digital and paper publications about this tool when it's published.
As a system kind of person I suggest you something like this
https://docs.python.org/3/library/fcntl.html#fcntl.lockf
This is how I would solve it there is so many way to solve this problem and it is up to debate of course it is come hard with the best solution
Assume the output file is where the conflict happen
so you lock the file and you keep polling until the resource is release (the user need to wait) so you force one user to access the file at a time (polling here time.sleep) for like 2-3 seconds (add a try except) here thread lock on the output file only when the resource is release the next user process will pass through normally.
Another easy way is to dump the data in a rds like mysql or postgres it will handle all the file access nightmare occurred from concurrent request (put the output file in a db).
I would like to run jobs, but as they may be long, I would like to know how far they have been processed during their execution. That is, the executor would regularly return its progress, without ending the job it is executing.
I have tried to do this with APScheduler, but it seems the scheduler can only receive event messages like EVENT_JOB_EXECUTED or EVENT_JOB_ERROR.
Is it possible to get information from an executor while it is executing a job?
Thanks in advance!
There is, I think, no particular support for this within APScheduler. This requirement has come up for me many times, and the best solution will depend on exactly what you need. Some possibilities:
Job status dictionary
The simplest solution would be to use a plain python dictionary. Make the key the job's key, and the value whatever status information you require. This solution works best if you only have one copy of each job running concurrently (max_instances=1), of course. If you need some structure to your status information, I'm a fan of namedtuples for this. Then, you either keep the dictionary as an evil global variable or pass it into each job function.
There are some drawbacks, though. The status information will stay in the dictionary forever, unless you delete it. If you delete it at the end of the job, you don't get to read a 'job complete' status, and otherwise you have to make sure that whatever is monitoring the status definitely checks and clears every job. This of course isn't a big deal if you have a reasonable sized set of jobs/keys.
Custom dict
If you need some extra functions, you can do as above, but subclass dict (or UserDict or MutableMapping, depending on what you want).
Memcached
If you've got a memcached server you can use, storing the status reports in memcached works great, since they can expire automatically and they should be globally accessible to your application. One probably-minor drawback is that the status information could be evicted from the memcached server if it runs out of memory, so you can't guarantee that the information will be available.
A more major drawback is that this does require you to have a memcached server available. If you might or might not have one available, you can use dogpile.cache and choose the backend that's appropriate at the time.
Something else
Pieter's comment about using a callback function is worth taking note of. If you know what kind of status information you'll need, but you're not sure how you'll end up storing or using it, passing a wrapper to your jobs will make it easy to use a different backend later.
As always, though, be wary of over-engineering your solution. If all you want is a report that says "20/133 items processed", a simple dictionary is probably enough.