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.
Related
We have been using Airflow for a while, it is just great.
Now we are considering moving some of our very frequent tasks into our airflow server too.
Let's say I have a script running every second.
What's the best practice to schedule it with airflow:
Run this script in DAG that is scheduled every second. I highly doubt this will be the solution, there is significant overhead for a DAGRUN
Run this script in a while loop that stops after 6 hours, then schedule it on Airflow to be run every 6 hour?
Create a DAG with no schedule, put the task in a while True loop with proper sleep time, so the task will never terminates unless there is an error.
Any other suggestions?
Or this kind of task is just not suitable for Airflow? should do it with a lambda function and AWS scheduler?
Cheers!
What's the best practice to schedule it
... this kind of task is just not suitable for Airflow?
It is not suitable.
In particular, your airflow is probably configured to re-examine the set of DAGs every 5 seconds, which doesn't sound like a good fit for a 1-second task. Plus the ratio of scheduling overhead to work performed would not be attractive. I suppose you could schedule five simultaneous tasks, twelve times per minute, and have them sleep zero to four seconds, but that's just crazy. And likely you would need to "lock against yourself" to avoid having simultaneous sibling tasks step on each other's toes.
The six-hour suggestion (2.) is not crazy. I will view it as a sixty-minute #hourly task instead, since overheads are similar. Exiting after an hour and letting airflow respawn has several benefits. Log rolling happens at regular intervals. If your program crashes, it will be restarted before too long. If your host reboots, again your program is restarted before too long. Downside is that your business need may view "more than a minute" as "much too long". And coordinating overlapping tasks, or gap between tasks, at the hour boundary may pose some issues.
Your stated needs exactly match the problem that Supervisor addresses. Just use that. You will always have exactly one copy of your event loop running, even if the app crashes, even if the host crashes. Log rolling and other administrative details have already been addressed. The code base is mature and lots of folks have beat on it and incorporated their feature requests. It fits what you want.
I need to run a specific manage.py commands on an EC2 instance every X minutes. For example: python manage.py some_command.
I have looked up django-chronograph. Following the instructions, I've added chronograph to my settings.py but on runserver it keeps telling me No module named chronograph.
Is there something I'm missing to get this running? And after running how do I get manage.py commands to run using chronograph?
Edit: It's installed in the EC2 instance's virtualenv.
I would suggest you to configure cron to run your command at specific times/intervals.
First, install it by running pip install django-chronograph.
I would say handle this through cross, but if you don't want to use cross then:
Make sure you installed the module in the virtualenv (With easy_install, pip, or any other way that Amazon EC2 allows). After that you might want to look up the threading module documentation:
Python 2 threading module documentation
Python 3 threading module documentation
The purpose of using threading will be to have the following structure:
A "control" thread, which will use the chronograph module and do the time measurements, and putting the new work to do in an "input queue" on each scheduled time, for the worker threads (which will be active already) to process, or just trigger each worker thread (make it active) at the time you want to trigger each execution. In the first case you'll be taking advantage of parallel threads to do a big chunk of work and minimize io wait times, but since the work is in a queue, the workers will process one at a time. Meaning if you schedule two things too close together and the previous element is still being processed, the new item will have to wait (Depending on your programming logic and amount of worker threads some workers might start processing the new item, but is a bit more complex logic).
In the second case your control thread will actually trigger the start of a new thread (or group of threads) each time you want to trigger a scheduled action. If there's big data to process you might need to spawn a new queue for each task to process and create a group of worker threads for it for each task, but if the data is not that big then you can just get away with having the worker process just one data package and be done once execution is done and you get a result. Either way this method will allow you to schedule tasks without limitation on how close they can be, since new independent worker threads will be created for them every time.
Finally, you might want to create an "output queue" and output thread, to store and process (or output, or anything else you want to do with it...) the results of each worker threads.
The control thread will be basically trying to imitate cron in its logic, triggering actions at certain times depending on how it was configured.
There's also a multiprocessing module in python which will work with processes instead and take advantage of true multiprocessing hardware, but I don't think you'll really need it in this case, unless you see performance issues caused by cpu performance.
If you need any clarification, help, examples, just let me know.
In my django project, I need to collect data from about 50 remote servers into the local database minutely or every 30-seconds. Though it works with crontab in the remote servers, I want to do this in the project. Firstly, I consider the django-celery. However it does well in asynchronous processing and the collect-data task could not be delayed. Therefore i think, it may be not fit. How if i do this use the timer for python and what need i to pay more attention. Excuse for my ignorance of python and django. I'll appreciate other advice or ideas. Many thanks
Basically you can use Celery's preiodic tasks with expire option, which makes you sure that your tasks will not be executed twice.
Also you could run your own script with infinite loop like which will run calculation. If your calculation will run more than minute you can spawn your tasks using eventlet or gevent. Other option you could creare celery-tasks from this script and be sure that your tasks executes every N seconds, as you prefer.
We need a service that we can use to schedule events. For instance, we might have a task that needs to run at 3 o'clock (one time) or that runs every 2 hours (multiple times). Preferably each task could be configured with an AMQP queue that it would publish to.
We could easily implement this by creating an OS timer event. My concern is how to recover if this service ever went down. We could use CRON if it was something that allowed scheduling on-the-fly.
I was looking for a way to avoid reinventing the wheel. If there isn't a project out there that does this already, we will just create one. This is a pretty common thing, though, so I'd be surprised if no one's put one out there by now.
Celery solves this problem.
celery.schedules lets you define periodic tasks. And you can override is_due to do things like schedule once a month. You can schedule tasks to execute at a specific time using periodic_task, or celery-beat (which I believe is now the standard approach). Yet another way is to use the eta argument to Task.apply_async.
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.