We Keep Coding

Running asynchronous python code in a Django web application

Is it OK to run certain pieces of code asynchronously in a Django web app. If so how?
For example:
I have a search algorithm that returns hundreds or thousands of results. I want to enter into the database that these items were the result of the search, so I can see what users are searching most. I don't want the client to have to wait an extra hundred or thousand more database inserts. Is there a way I can do this asynchronously? Is there any danger in doing so? Is there a better way to achieve this?

As far as Django is concerned yes.
The bigger concern is your web server and if it plays nice with threading. For instance, the sync workers of gunicorn are single threads, but there are other engines, such as greenlet. I'm not sure how well they play with threads.
Combining threading and multiprocessing can be an issue if you're forking from threads:
Status of mixing multiprocessing and threading in Python
http://bugs.python.org/issue6721
That being said, I know of popular performance analytics utilities that have been using threads to report on metrics, so seems to be an accepted practice.
In sum, seems safest to use the threading.Thread object from the standard library, so long as whatever you do in it doesn't fork (python's multiprocessing library)
https://docs.python.org/2/library/threading.html

Offloading requests from the main thread is a common practice; as the end goal is to return a result to the client (browser) as quickly as possible.
As I am sure you are aware, HTTP is blocking - so until you return a response, the client cannot do anything (it is blocked, in a waiting state).
The de-facto way of offloading requests is through celery which is a task queuing system.
I highly recommend you read the introduction to celery topic, but in summary here is what happens:
You mark certain pieces of codes as "tasks". These are usually functions that you want to run asynchronously.
Celery manages workers - you can think of them as threads - that will run these tasks.
To communicate with the worker a message queue is required. RabbitMQ is the one often recommended.
Once you have all the components running (it takes but a few minutes); your workflow goes like this:
In your view, when you want to offload some work; you will call the function that does that work with the .delay() option. This will trigger the worker to start executing the method in the background.
Your view then returns a response immediately.
You can then check for the result of the task, and take appropriate actions based on what needs to be done. There are ways to track progress as well.
It is also good practice to include caching - so that you are not executing expensive tasks unnecessarily. For example, you might choose to offload a request to do some analytics on search keywords that will be placed in a report.
Once the report is generated, I would cache the results (if applicable) so that the same report can be displayed if requested later - rather than be generated again.

Python - Waiting for input from lots of sockets

I'm working on a simple experiment in Python. I have a "master" process, in charge of all the others, and every single process has a connection via unix socket to the master process. I would like to be able for the master process to be able to monitor all of the sockets for a response - but there could theoretically be almost a hundred of them. How would threads impact the memory and performance of the application? What would be the best solution? Thanks a lot!

One hundred simultaneous threads might be pushing the reasonable limits of threading. If you find this is the cleanest way to organize your code, I'd say give it a try, but threading really doesn't scale very far.
What works better is to use a technique like select to wait for one of the sockets to be readable / writable / or has an error to report. This mechanism lets you go to sleep until something interesting happens, handle as many sockets have content to handle, and then go back to sleep again, all in a single thread of execution. Removing the multi-threading can often reduce chances for errors, and this style of programming should get you into the hundreds of connections no trouble. (If you want to go beyond about 100, I'd use the poll functionality instead of select -- constantly rebuilding the list of interesting file descriptors takes time that poll does not require.)
Something to consider is the Python Twisted Framework. They've gone to some length to provide a consistent way to hook callbacks onto events for this exact sort of programming. (If you're familiar with node.js, it's a bit like that, but Python.) I must admit a slight aversion to Twisted -- I never got very far in their documentation without being utterly baffled -- but a lot of people made it further in the docs than I did. You might find it a better fit than I have.

The easiest way to conduct comparative tests of threads versus processes for socket handling is to use the SocketServer in Python's standard library. You can easily switch approaches (while keeping everything else the same) by inheriting from either ThreadingMixIn or ForkingMixIn. Here is a simple example to get you started.
Another alternative is a select/poll approach using non-blocking sockets in a single process and a single thread.
If you're interested in software that is already fully developed and highly evolved, consider these high-performance Python based server packages:
The Twisted framework uses the async single process, single thread style.
The Tornado framework is similar (less evolved, less full featured, but easier to understand)
And Gunicorn which is a high-performance forking server.

python threading/fork?

I'm making a python script that needs to do 3 things simultaneously.
What is a good way to achieve this as do to what i've heard about the GIL i'm not so lean into using threads anymore.
2 of the things that the script needs to do will be heavily active, they will have lots of work to do and then i need to have the third thing reporting to the user over a socket when he asks (so it will be like a tiny server) about the status of the other 2 processes.
Now my question is what would be a good way to achieve this? I don't want to have three different script and also due to GIL using threads i think i won't get much performance and i'll make things worse.
Is there a fork() for python like in C so from my script so fork 2 processes that will do their job and from the main process to report to the user? And how can i communicate from the forked processes with the main process?
LE:: to be more precise 1thread should get email from a imap server and store them into a database, another thread should get messages from db that needs to be sent and then send them and the main thread should be a tiny http server that will just accept one url and will show the status of those two threads in json format. So are threads oK? will the work be done simultaneously or due to the gil there will be performance issues?

I think you could use the multiprocessing package that has an API similar to the threading package and will allow you to get a better performance with multiple cores on a single CPU.
To view the gain of performance using multiprocessing instead threading, check on this link about the average time comparison of the same program using multiprocessing x threading.

The GIL is really only something to care about if you want to do multiprocessing, that is spread the load over several cores/processors. If that is the case, and it kinda sounds like it from your description, use multiprocessing.
If you just need to do three things "simultaneously" in that way that you need to wait in the background for things to happen, then threads are just fine. That's what threads are for in the first place. 8-I)

Python "Task Server"

My question is: which python framework should I use to build my server?
Notes:
This server talks HTTP with it's clients: GET and POST (via pyAMF)
Clients "submit" "tasks" for processing and, then, sometime later, retrieve the associated "task_result"
submit and retrieve might be separated by days - different HTTP connections
The "task" is a lump of XML describing a problem to be solved, and a "task_result" is a lump of XML describing an answer.
When a server gets a "task", it queues it for processing
The server manages this queue and, when tasks get to the top, organises that they are processed.
the processing is performed by a long running (15 mins?) external program (via subprocess) which is feed the task XML and which produces a "task_result" lump of XML which the server picks up and stores (for later Client retrieval).
it serves a couple of basic HTML pages showing the Queue and processing status (admin purposes only)
I've experimented with twisted.web, using SQLite as the database and threads to handle the long running processes.
But I can't help feeling that I'm missing a simpler solution. Am I? If you were faced with this, what technology mix would you use?

I'd recommend using an existing message queue. There are many to choose from (see below), and they vary in complexity and robustness.
Also, avoid threads: let your processing tasks run in a different process (why do they have to run in the webserver?)
By using an existing message queue, you only need to worry about producing messages (in your webserver) and consuming them (in your long running tasks). As your system grows you'll be able to scale up by just adding webservers and consumers, and worry less about your queuing infrastructure.
Some popular python implementations of message queues:
http://code.google.com/p/stomper/
http://code.google.com/p/pyactivemq/
http://xph.us/software/beanstalkd/

I'd suggest the following. (Since it's what we're doing.)
A simple WSGI server (wsgiref or werkzeug). The HTTP requests coming in will naturally form a queue. No further queueing needed. You get a request, you spawn the subprocess as a child and wait for it to finish. A simple list of children is about all you need.
I used a modification of the main "serve forever" loop in wsgiref to periodically poll all of the children to see how they're doing.
A simple SQLite database can track request status. Even this may be overkill because your XML inputs and results can just lay around in the file system.
That's it. Queueing and threads don't really enter into it. A single long-running external process is too complex to coordinate. It's simplest if each request is a separate, stand-alone, child process.
If you get immense bursts of requests, you might want a simple governor to prevent creating thousands of children. The governor could be a simple queue, built using a list with append() and pop(). Every request goes in, but only requests that fit will in some "max number of children" limit are taken out.

My reaction is to suggest Twisted, but you've already looked at this. Still, I stick by my answer. Without knowing you personal pain-points, I can at least share some things that helped me reduce almost all of the deferred-madness that arises when you have several dependent, blocking actions you need to perform for a client.
Inline callbacks (lightly documented here: http://twistedmatrix.com/documents/8.2.0/api/twisted.internet.defer.html) provide a means to make long chains of deferreds much more readable (to the point of looking like straight-line code). There is an excellent example of the complexity reduction this affords here: http://blog.mekk.waw.pl/archives/14-Twisted-inlineCallbacks-and-deferredGenerator.html
You don't always have to get your bulk processing to integrate nicely with Twisted. Sometimes it is easier to break a large piece of your program off into a stand-alone, easily testable/tweakable/implementable command line tool and have Twisted invoke this tool in another process. Twisted's ProcessProtocol provides a fairly flexible way of launching and interacting with external helper programs. Furthermore, if you suddenly decide you want to cloudify your application, it is not all that big of a deal to use a ProcessProtocol to simply run your bulk processing on a remote server (random EC2 instances perhaps) via ssh, assuming you have the keys setup already.

You can have a look at celery

It seems any python web framework will suit your needs. I work with a similar system on a daily basis and I can tell you, your solution with threads and SQLite for queue storage is about as simple as you're going to get.
Assuming order doesn't matter in your queue, then threads should be acceptable. It's important to make sure you don't create race conditions with your queues or, for example, have two of the same job type running simultaneously. If this is the case, I'd suggest a single threaded application to do the items in the queue one by one.

how to process long-running requests in python workers?

I have a python (well, it's php now but we're rewriting) function that takes some parameters (A and B) and compute some results (finds best path from A to B in a graph, graph is read-only), in typical scenario one call takes 0.1s to 0.9s to complete. This function is accessed by users as a simple REST web-service (GET bestpath.php?from=A&to=B). Current implementation is quite stupid - it's a simple php script+apache+mod_php+APC, every requests needs to load all the data (over 12MB in php arrays), create all structures, compute a path and exit. I want to change it.
I want a setup with N independent workers (X per server with Y servers), each worker is a python app running in a loop (getting request -> processing -> sending reply -> getting req...), each worker can process one request at a time. I need something that will act as a frontend: get requests from users, manage queue of requests (with configurable timeout) and feed my workers with one request at a time.
how to approach this? can you propose some setup? nginx + fcgi or wsgi or something else? haproxy? as you can see i'am a newbie in python, reverse-proxy, etc. i just need a starting point about architecture (and data flow)
btw. workers are using read-only data so there is no need to maintain locking and communication between them

The typical way to handle this sort of arrangement using threads in Python is to use the standard library module Queue. An example of using the Queue module for managing workers can be found here: Queue Example

Looks like you need the "workers" to be separate processes (at least some of them, and therefore might as well make them all separate processes rather than bunches of threads divided into several processes). The multiprocessing module in Python 2.6 and later's standard library offers good facilities to spawn a pool of processes and communicate with them via FIFO "queues"; if for some reason you're stuck with Python 2.5 or even earlier there are versions of multiprocessing on the PyPi repository that you can download and use with those older versions of Python.
The "frontend" can and should be pretty easily made to run with WSGI (with either Apache or Nginx), and it can deal with all communications to/from worker processes via multiprocessing, without the need to use HTTP, proxying, etc, for that part of the system; only the frontend would be a web app per se, the workers just receive, process and respond to units of work as requested by the frontend. This seems the soundest, simplest architecture to me.
There are other distributed processing approaches available in third party packages for Python, but multiprocessing is quite decent and has the advantage of being part of the standard library, so, absent other peculiar restrictions or constraints, multiprocessing is what I'd suggest you go for.

There are many FastCGI modules with preforked mode and WSGI interface for python around, the most known is flup. My personal preference for such task is superfcgi with nginx. Both will launch several processes and will dispatch requests to them. 12Mb is not as much to load them separately in each process, but if you'd like to share data among workers you need threads, not processes. Note, that heavy math in python with single process and many threads won't use several CPU/cores efficiently due to GIL. Probably the best approach is to use several processes (as much as cores you have) each running several threads (default mode in superfcgi).

The most simple solution in this case is to use the webserver to do all the heavy lifting. Why should you handle threads and/or processes when the webserver will do all that for you?
The standard arrangement in deployments of Python is:
The webserver start a number of processes each running a complete python interpreter and loading all your data into memory.
HTTP request comes in and gets dispatched off to some process
Process does your calculation and returns the result directly to the webserver and user
When you need to change your code or the graph data, you restart the webserver and go back to step 1.
This is the architecture used Django and other popular web frameworks.

I think you can configure modwsgi/Apache so it will have several "hot" Python interpreters
in separate processes ready to go at all times and also reuse them for new accesses
(and spawn a new one if they are all busy).
In this case you could load all the preprocessed data as module globals and they would
only get loaded once per process and get reused for each new access. In fact I'm not sure this isn't the default configuration
for modwsgi/Apache.
The main problem here is that you might end up consuming
a lot of "core" memory (but that may not be a problem either).
I think you can also configure modwsgi for single process/multiple
thread -- but in that case you may only be using one CPU because
of the Python Global Interpreter Lock (the infamous GIL), I think.
Don't be afraid to ask at the modwsgi mailing list -- they are very
responsive and friendly.

You could use nginx load balancer to proxy to PythonPaste paster (which serves WSGI, for example Pylons), that launches each request as separate thread anyway.

Another option is a queue table in the database.
The worker processes run in a loop or off cron and poll the queue table for new jobs.