Here's what I'm trying to achieve:
I have a pyramid view that puts a rather large task task_1 in the default queue
task_1 does a couple of simple database things then adds task_2 to the default queue a whole bunch of times with different arguments.
task_2 instantiates some stuff in the database
Here is what is happening:
All my ram is eaten up and my computer starts paging frantically. So frantically in fact that the keyboard doesn't work well enough to stop the offending process.
The question is: How do I fix this?
Here is what I have done so far, some assumptions I'm making and what I intend to try:
I wrote a small script to take snapshots of what is using the memory up since a whole lotta stuff is added to the queue - RabbitMQ is playing nice, while celery gradually increases its footprint so the problem is there.
My informative celery log shows tasks being completed so it isn't just one task going haywire.
As far as I can see, celery simply isn't releasing memory after a task is completed. I think this has to do with sqlalchemy simply because it sometimes does some funny things. Case in point I once had a celery task that added some stuff to the database via sqlalchemy which it did fine for a while but then life ended. I took the part of the code that dealt with the sqlalchemy and stuck it in an external script that the celery task launched as a self contained process and all my problems went away. It's kinda a mission to do that every time I want to interact with a database in a celery task though so I would much prefer not to go that route.
Currently I'm reading a bit more about how celery actually works but I think that if I periodically restart the celery worker that would do the trick. Am I on the right path? Or is there something simple and obvious that I'm missing?
Related
I have a heavy function (a lot of calculations are done) which outputs a individual number for each user in my Django project. This number changes just a little over time so to minimize the server load I thought about running the function once a day, save the output and just reference the output. I know that these kinda things are usually handled with Celery but the package requires a lot of site packages and extra modules so I thought about writing a simple function like:
x0 = #last.time function was called
x1 = datetime.now
if x0-x1 > 1 day:
def whatever():
....
x0 = datetime.now
return ....
I like to keep my code clean and not to install Packages which are not really required so I would like to know if there are any downsides by "just" using Python or any gain when I would do that with Celery. The task does not need to be asynchronous so I don't care about that.
Is there a clear "Use case" when Celery should be used and when not? Is there a performance loss/gain?
I hope somebody can explain that properly.
Celery is a clear winner but I would like to explain this with pros and cons.
Pros:
You can control celery from Django very easily. Running a celery task, cancelling task, checking state/progress of task can be done within django.
A periodical task running with celery is very simple, just register the task from django run the celery worker and voila you are done. No need to mess around with crontab or background processes.
Celery is very easy to setup and run. You might already know that if you have gone through the introduction of celery.
Cons
One of the cons is that you need to have at least one result backend with either redis, rabbitmq or any other one running with celery for queuing purposes. Although RabbitMq is not a heavy you need to install it once.
One more is that celery worker itself takes some memory but that won't be an issue if you are on a server, on local memory consumption might seem high to you.
I would suggest celery because it would provide you more control over your task rather than a simple background process.
I'm doing some metric analysis on on my web app, which makes extensive use of celery. I have one metric which measures the full trip from a post_save signal through a celery task (which itself calls a number of different celery tasks) to the end of that task. I've been hitting the server with up to 100 requests in 5 seconds.
What I find interesting is that when I hit the server with hundreds of requests (which entails thousands of celery worker processes being queued), the time it takes for the trip from post save to the end of the main celery task increases significantly, even though I never do any additional database calls, and none of the celery tasks should be blocking the main task.
Could the fact that there are so many celery tasks in the queue when I make a bunch of requests really quickly be slowing down the logic in my post_save function and main celery task? That is, could the processing associated with getting the sub-tasks that the main celery task creates onto a crowded queue be having a significant impact on the time it takes to reach the end of the main celery task?
It's impossible to really answer your question without an in-depth analysis of your actual code AND benchmark protocol, and while having some working experience with Python, Django and Celery I wouldn't be able to do such an in-depth analysis. Now there are a couple very obvious points :
if your workers are running on the same computer as your Django instance, they will compete with Django process(es) for CPU, RAM and IO.
if the benchmark "client" is also running on the same computer then you have a "heisenbench" case - bombing a server with 100s of HTTP request per second also uses a serious amount of resources...
To make a long story short: concurrent / parallel programming won't give you more processing power, it will only allow you to (more or less) easily scale horizontally.
I'm not sure about slowing down, but it can cause your application to hang. I've had this problem where one application would backup several other queues with no workers. My application could then no longer queue messages.
If you open up a django shell and try to queue a task. Then hit ctrl+c. I can't quite remember what the stack trace should be, but if you post it here I could confirm it.
My task is it to write a script using opencv which will later run as a Celery task. What consequences does this have? What do I have to pay attention to? Is it enough in the end to include two lines of code or could it be, that I have to rewrite my whole script?
I read, that Celery is a "asynchronous task queue/job queuing system based on distributed message passing", but I wont pretend to know completely what that all entails.
I try to update the question, as soon as I get more details.
Celery implies a daemon using a broker (some data hub used to queue tasks). The celeryd daemon and the broker (RabbitMQ, redis, MongoDB or else) should always run in the background.
Your tasks will be queued, this means they won't happen all at the same time. You can choose how many at the same time can be run as a maximum. The rest of them will wait for the others to finish before starting. This also means some concurrency is often expected, and that you must create tasks that play nice with others doing the same thing.
Celery is not meant to run scripts but tasks, written as python functions. You can of course execute external scripts from Python, but your entry point is always a Python function.
Celery uses Kombu, which uses a message broker to dispatch the tasks. This implies the data you pass to your tasks should be serializable.
I'm using Celery to queue jobs from a CGI application I made. The way I've set it up, Celery makes each job run one- or two-at-a-time by setting CELERYD_CONCURRENCY = 1 or = 2 (so they don't crowd the processor or thrash from memory consumption). The queue works great, thanks to advice I got on StackOverflow.
Each of these jobs takes a fair amount of time (~30 minutes serial), but has an embarrassing parallelizability. For this reason, I was using Pool.map to split it and do the work in parallel. It worked great from the command line, and I got runtimes around 5 minutes using a new many-cored chip.
Unfortunately, there is some limitation that does not allow daemonic process to have subprocesses, and when I run the fancy parallelized code within the CGI queue, I get this error:
AssertionError: daemonic processes are not allowed to have children
I noticed other people have had similar questions, but I can't find an answer that wouldn't require abandoning Pool.map altogether, and making more complicated thread code.
What is the appropriate design choice here? I can easily run my serial jobs using my Celery queue. I can also run my much faster parallelized jobs without a queue. How should I approach this, and is it possible to get what I want (both the queue and the per-job parallelization)?
A couple of ideas I've had (some are quite hacky):
The job sent to the Celery queue simply calls the command line program. That program can use Pool as it pleases, and then saves the result figures & data to a file (just as it does now). Downside: I won't be able to check on the status of the job or see if it terminated successfully. Also, system calls from CGI may cause security issues.
Obviously, if the queue is very full of jobs, I can make use of the CPU resources (by setting CELERYD_CONCURRENCY = 6 or so); this will allow many people to be "at the front of the queue" at once.Downside: Each job will spend a lot of time at the front of the queue; if the queue isn't full, there will be no speedup. Also, many partially finished jobs will be stored in memory at the same time, using much more RAM.
Use Celery's #task to parallelize within sub-jobs. Then, instead of setting CELERYD_CONCURRENCY = 1, I would set it to 6 (or however many sub jobs I'd like to allow in memory at a time). Downside: First of all, I'm not sure whether this will successfully avoid the "task-within-task" problem. But also, the notion of queue position may be lost, and many partially finished jobs may end up in memory at once.
Perhaps there is a way to call Pool.map and specify that the threads are non-daemonic? Or perhaps there is something more lightweight I can use instead of Pool.map? This is similar to an approach taken on another open StackOverflow question. Also, I should note that the parallelization I exploit via Pool.map is similar to linear algebra, and there is no inter-process communication (each just runs independently and returns its result without talking to the others).
Throw away Celery and use multiprocessing.Queue. Then maybe there'd be some way to use the same "thread depth" for every thread I use (i.e. maybe all of the threads could use the same Pool, avoiding nesting)?
Thanks a lot in advance.
What you need is a workflow management system (WFMS) that manages
task concurrency
task dependency
task nesting
among other things.
From a very high level view, a WFMS sits on top of a task pool like celery, and submits the tasks which are ready to execute to the pool. It is also responsible for opening up a nest and submitting the tasks in the nest accordingly.
I've developed a system to do just that. It's called pomsets. Try it out, and feel free to send me any questions.
I using a multiprocessed deamons based on Twisted with forking and Gearman jobs query normally.
Try to look at Gearman.
I have a task which I execute once a minute using celerybeat. It works fine. Sometimes though, the task takes a few seconds more than a minute to run because of which two instances of the task run. This leads to some race conditions that mess things up.
I can (and probably should) fix my task to work properly but I wanted to know if celery has any builtin ways to ensure this. My cursory Google searches and RTFMs yielded no results.
You could add a lock, using something like memcached or just your db.
If you are using a cron schedule or time interval for run periodic tasks you will still have the problem. You can always use a lock mechanism using a db or cache or even filesystem or also schedule the next task from the previous one, maybe not the best approach.
This question can probably help you:
django celery: how to set task to run at specific interval programmatically
You can try adding a classfield to the object that holds the function that youre making run and use that field as a "some other guy is working or not" control
The lock is a good way with either beat or a cron.
But, be aware that beat jobs run at worker start time, not at beat run time.
This was causing me to get a race condition even with a lock. Lets say the worker is off and beat throws 10 jobs into the queue. When celery starts up with 4 processes, all 4 of them grab a task and in my case 1 or 2 would get and set the lock at the same time.
Solution one is to use a cron with a lock, as a cron will execute at that time, not at worker start time.
Solution two is to use a slightly more advanced locking mechanism that handles race conditions. For redis look into setnx, or the newer redlock.
This blog post is really good, and includes a decorator pattern that uses redis-py's locking mechanism: http://loose-bits.com/2010/10/distributed-task-locking-in-celery.html.