I'm new to dotcloud, and am confused about how multiple services work together.
my yaml build file is:
www:
type: python
db:
type: postgresql
worker:
type: python-worker
broker:
type: rabbitmq
And my supervisord file contains commands to start django celery & celerycam.
When I push my code out to my app, I can see that both the www & worker services start up their own instances of celery & celery cam, and also for example the log files will be different. This makes sense (although isn't made very clear in the dotcloud documentation in IMO - the documentation talks about setting up a worker service, but not how to combine that with other services), but does raise the question of how to configure an application where the python service mainly serves the web page, whilst the python worker service works on background tasks, eg: celery.
The dotcloud documentation daemon makes mention of this:
"However, you should be aware that when you scale your application,
the cron tasks will be scheduled in all scaled instances – which is
probably not what you need! So in many cases, it will still be better
to use a separate service.
Similarly, a lot of (non-worker) services already run Supervisor, so
you can run additional background jobs in those services. Then again,
remember that those background jobs will run in multiple instances if
you scale your application. Moreover, if you add background jobs to
your web service, it will get less resources to serve pages, and your
performance will take a significant hit."
How do you configure dotcloud & your application to run just the webserver on one service, and background tasks on the worker service? Would you scale workers by increasing the concurrency setting in celery (and scaling the one service vertically), by adding extra worker services, or both?
Would you do this so that firstly the webserver service doesn't have to use resources in processing background tasks, and secondly so that you could scale the worker services independently of the webserver service?
There are two tricks.
First you could use different approots for your www and worker services to separate the code they will run:
www:
type: python
approot: frontend
# ...
worker:
type: python-worker
approot: backend
# ...
Second, since your postinstall script is different for each approot, you can copy a file out to become the correct supervisord.conf for that particular service.
You may also want to look at the dotCloud tutorial and sample code for django-celery.
/Andy
Related
I have a little scenario that I am running in my mind with the following setup:
A Django Web Server running in Kubernetes with the ability to autoscale resources (Google Kubernetes Engine), and I set the resource values to be requesting nodes with 8 Processing Units (8 Cores) and 16 GB Ram.
Because it is a web server, I have my frontend that can call a Python script that executes with 5 Processes, and here's what I am worried about:
I know that If I run this script twice on my webserver (located in the same container as my Django code), I am going to be using (to keep it simple) 10 Processes/CPUs to execute this code.
So what would happen?
Would the first Python script be ran on Pod 1 and the second Python script (since we used 5 out of the 8 processing units) trigger a Pod 2 and another Node, then run on that new replica with full access to 5 new processes?
Or, would the first Python script be ran on Replica 1, and then the second Python script be throttled to 3 processing units because, perhaps, Kubernetes is allocating based on CPU usage in the Replica, not how much processes I called the script with?
If your system has a Django application that launches scripts with subprocess or a similar mechanism, those will always be in the same container as the main server, in the same pod, on the same node. You'll never trigger any of the Kubernetes autoscaling capabilities. If the pod has resource limits set, you could get CPU utilization throttled, and if you exceed the configured memory limit, the pod could get killed off (with Django and all of its subprocesses together).
If you want to take better advantage of Kubernetes scheduling and resource management, you may need to restructure this application. Ideally you could run the Django server and each of the supporting tasks in a separate pod. You would then need a way to trigger the tasks and collect the results.
I'd generally build this by introducing a job queue system such as RabbitMQ or Celery into the mix. The Django application adds items to the queue, but doesn't directly do the work itself. Then you have a worker for each of the processes that reads the queue and does work. This is not directly tied to Kubernetes, and you could run this setup with a RabbitMQ or Redis installation and a local virtual environment.
If you deploy this setup to Kubernetes, then each of the tasks can run in its own deployment, fed by the work queue. Each task could run up to its own configured memory and CPU limits, and they could run on different nodes. With a little extra work you can connect a horizontal pod autoscaler to scale the workers based on the length of the job queue, so if you're running behind processing one of the tasks, the HPA can cause more workers to get launched, which will create more pods, which can potentially allocate more nodes.
The important detail here, though, is that a pod is the key unit of scaling; if all of your work stays within a single pod then you'll never trigger the horizontal pod autoscaler or the cluster autoscaler.
I am testing Google Cloud Run by following the official instruction:
https://cloud.google.com/run/docs/quickstarts/build-and-deploy
Is it possible to deploy or use several containers as one service in Google Cloud Run? For example: DB server container, Web server container, etc.
Short Answer NO. You can't deploy several container on the same service (as you could do with a Pod on K8S).
However, you can run several binaries in parallel on the same container -> This article has been written by a Googler that work on Cloud Run.
In addition, keep in mind
Cloud Run is a serverless product. It scales up and down (to 0) as it wants (but especially according with the traffic). If the startup duration is long and a new instance of your service is created, the query will take time to be served (and your use will wait)
You pay as you use, I means, you are billed only when HTTP requests are processed. Out of processing period, the CPU allocated to the instance is close to 0.
That implies that Cloud Run serves container that handle HTTP requests. You can't run a batch processing out of any HTTP request, in background.
Cloud Run is stateless. You have an ephemeral and in memory writable directory (/tmp) but when the instance goes down, all the data goes down. You can't run a DB server container that store data. You can interact with external services (Cloud SQL, Cloud Storage,...) but store only transient file locally
To answer your question directly, I do not think it is possible to deploy a service that has two different containers: DB server container, and Web server container. This does not include scaling (service is automatically scaled to a certain number of container instances).
However, you can deploy a container (a service) that contains multiple processes, although it might not be considered as best practices, as mentioned in this article.
Cloud Run takes a user's container and executes it on Google infrastructure, and handles the instantiation of instances (scaling) of that container, seamlessly based on parameters specified by the user.
To deploy to Cloud Run, you need to provide a container image. As the documentation points out:
A container image is a packaging format that includes your code, its packages, any needed binary dependencies, the operating system to use, and anything else needed to run your service.
In response to incoming requests, a service is automatically scaled to a certain number of container instances, each of which runs the deployed container image. Services are the main resources of Cloud Run.
Each service has a unique and permanent URL that will not change over time as you deploy new revisions to it. You can refer to the documentation for more details about the container runtime contract.
As a result of the above, Cloud Run is primarily designed to run web applications. If you are after a microservice architecture, which consists of different servers running each in unique containers, you will need to deploy multiple services. I understand that you want to use Cloud Run as database server, but perhaps you may be interested in Google's database solutions, like Cloud SQL, Datastore, BigTable or Spanner.
I have a task that takes approximately 3 minutes to run. It pulls data from a remote server and makes cpu-intensive analysis on it. This task will be invoked by an api call. Upon the api call, i am planning to give client a unique task id and assign the task to a celery worker. Then the client will poll the server with the given task id to see if the task is completed by celery worker and its result it saved to a result backend. I think of using nginx, gunicorn, flask and dockerize them for a easy deploy in case i need to distribute this architecture across multiple machines.
The problem is that the client may poll different servers due to load balancer and if not handled well, the polled server’s celery’s result backend might not have the task’s result but other server’s celery result backend has it.
Is it possible to use a single result backend over multiple celery instances and make different celery instances wuery the same result backend? What might be other possible ways to solve this other than using cloud storage like S3?
Would I have this problem only if I have multiple machines or would it happen even if I have multiple gunicorn instances in a single machine where nginx acts as a load balancer on them?
Not that it is possible to use a single result backend by all Celery workers, but that is the only setting that makes sense! Same goes for the broker in most cases, unless you have a complicated Celery infrastructure with exchanges, and complicated routes...
I'm trying to use sidekiq on Bluemix. I think that I'm on the right track, but it's not working completely.
I have an app with Sinatra that uses sidekiq jobs to make many actions. I set the following line in my manifest.yml file:
command: bundle exec rackup config.ru -p $PORT && bundle exec sidekiq -r ./server.rb -c 3
I thought that with this command sidekiq will run, However, when I call the endpoint that creates a job, it's still on the "Queue" section on the Sidekiq panel.
What actions do I need to take to get sidekiq to process the job?
PS: I'm beginner on Bluemix. I'm trying to migrate my app from Heroku to Bluemix.
Straightforward answer to this question "as asked":
Your start-up command does not evaluate a second part, the one after '&&'. If you try starting that in your local environment, the result'll be the same. The server will start up and the console will simply tail the server logs, not technically evaluating to true until you send it a kill signal (so the part after '&&' will never run at the same time).
Subbing that with just '&' sort-of-kinda fixes that, since both will run at the same time.
command: bundle exec rackup config.ru -p $PORT & bundle exec sidekiq
What is not ideal with that solution? Eh, probably a lot of stuff. The biggest offender though: having two processes active at the same time, only one of them expected and observed ( the second one ).
Sending '(bluemix) cf stop' to the application instance created by the manifest with this command stops only the observed one before decommissioning the instance - in that case we can not be sure that the first process freed up external resources by properly sending notifications or closing the connections, or whatever.
What you probably could consider instead:
1. Point one.
Bluemix is a CF implementation, and with a quick manifest.yml deploy, there is nothing preventing you from having the app server and sidekiq workers run on separate instances.
2. Better shell.
command: sh -c 'command1 & command2 & wait'
**3. TBD, probably a lot of options, but I am a beginner as well. **
Separate app instances on CloudFoundry for your rack-based application and your workers would be preferable because you can then:
Scale web / workers independently (more traffic? Just scale the web application)
Deploy each component independently, if needed
Make sure each process is health-checked
The downside of using & to join commands, as suggested in the other answer, is that the first process will launch in the background. This means you won't have reliable monitoring and automatic restarts if the first process crashes.
There's a slightly out of date example on the CloudFoundry website which demos using two application manifests (one for web, one for workers) to deploy each part independently.
We need to use Jenkins to test some web apps that each need:
a database (postgres in our case)
a search service (ElasticSearch in our case, but only sometimes)
a cache server, such as redis
So far, we've just had these services running on the Jenkins master, but this causes problems when we want to upgrade Postgres, ES or Redis versions. Not all apps can move in lock step, and we want to run the tests on new versions before committing to move an app in production.
What we'd like to do is have these services provided on a per-job-run basis, each one running in its own container.
What's the best way to orchestrate these containers?
How do you start up these ancillary containers and tear them down, regardless of whether to job succeeds or not?
how do you prevent port collisions between, say, the database in a run of a job for one web app and the database in the job for another web app?
Check docker-compose and write a docker-compose file for your tests.
The latest network features of Docker (private network) will help you to isolate builds running in parallel.
However, start learning docker-compose as if you only had one build at the same time. When confident with this, look further for advanced docker documentation around networking.