I 'm working of project that use celery, rabbitmq. I want to have right to control interval that queue push task to worker(celeryd).
It sounds like you're looking for this documentation on Periodic Tasks.
Essentially, you configure and run celerybeat, which fires off task executions at intervals.
Word of warning:
If it's undesirable to be running your task multiple times concurrently, I'd suggest you follow a task locking recipe. If your workers are busy or offline, you may end up with a backlog of periodic tasks.
Related
This is purely for a non-eager pytest mode of operation. I want to know when celery has "caught" up with all the outstanding work. Is there any way to find that information? My testing config has a celery_session_app and a single celery_session_worker in it's own thread.
Check the number of entries in the Rabbit queue. This has problems because of pre-fetch. I can set prefetch to 1 and maybe solve it that way but I worry about race conditions. (I'm testing chords and some celery tasks queue other celery tasks)
Add a task to the "end" of the list and then .wait() on it to finish. This has problems for tasks that queue other tasks because the queue is being extended in the other thread so I can be at the end of the list when queued, but that quickly moves forward as tasks are queued behind it. I can work around this using .apply_async(countdown=3) but this is pretty much the definition of a race condition and I might need countdown=4 or I might need nothing and that is some number of seconds wasted on a test regardless.
Use signals (somehow). But what I really need is a worker_is_bored which does not exist and suffers from the same kind of race conditions mentioned above. Tasks queueing tasks could make it flash "bored" and right back to "busy".
time.sleep(N) but what should N be. (i'm running pytest -n 10 so how busy the machine is during tests, is non-trivial). And this wastes time like countdown= above.
Under normal circumstances, will a workflow be executed by multiple workflow workers at the same time? Because multiple workflow workers can polldecision tasks to execute, if not, how does he do it?
No it will not.
There is only one pending workflow decision task at a time. When a workflow worker is working on a decision task, Cadence will not schedule another one until the current one completed, failed or timeout.
However, timeout is enforced by server, technically when a decision task timeout the worker is still working on it. But the results will not be accepted afterwards.
It depends on many factors. A workflow can be executed by a single worker if it is short. But it will be executed by many workers if it takes long enough to be pushed out of the worker cache or a worker fails/restarts.
But the same workflow is executed exactly once in all these situations.
MarkLogic Scheduled Tasks cannot be configured to run at an interval less than a minute.
Is there any way I can execute an XQuery module at an interval of 1 second?
NOTE:
Considering the situation where the Task Server is fully loaded and I need to make sure that the secondly scheduled task gets the Task Server thread whenever it needs.
Please let me know if there is anything in MarkLogic that can be used to achieve this.
Wanting rapid-fire scheduled tasks may be a hint that the design needs rethinking.
Even running a task once a minute can be risky, and needs careful thought to manage the possibilities of overlapping tasks and runaway tasks. If the application design calls for a scheduled task to run once a second, I would raise that as a potentially serious problem. Back up a few steps, and if necessary ask a new question about the higher-level problem that led to looking at scheduled tasks.
There was a sub-question about managing queue priority for tasks. Task priorities can handle some of that. There are two priorities: normal and higher. The Task Server empties the higher-priority queue first, then the normal queue. But each queue is still a simple queue, and there's no way to change priorities after a task has been spawned. So if you always queue tasks with priority=higher, then they'll all be in the higher priority queue and they'll all run in order. You can play some games with techniques like using server fields as signals to already-running tasks. But wanting to reorder tasks within a queue could be another hint that the design needs rethinking.
If, after careful thought about all the pitfalls and dangers, I decided I needed a rapid-fire task of some kind.... I would probably do it using external requests. Pick any scripting language and write a simple while loop with an HTTP request to the MarkLogic cluster. Even so, spend some time thinking about overlapping requests and locking. What happens if the request times out on the client side? Will it keep running on the server? Will that lead to overlapping requests and require deadlock resolution? Could it lead to runaway resource consumption?
Avoid any ideas that use xdmp:sleep. That will tie up a Task Server thread during the sleep period, and then you'll have two problems.
I'm looking for recommended solution to work around celerybeat being a single point of failure for celery/rabbitmq deployment. I didn't find anything that made sense so far, by searching the web.
In my case, once a day timed scheduler kicks off a series of jobs that could run for half a day or longer. Since there can only be one celerybeat instance, if something happens to it or the server that it's running on, critical jobs will not be run.
I'm hoping there is already a working solution for this, as I can't be the only one who needs reliable (clustered or the like) scheduler. I don't want to resort to some sort of database-backed scheduler, if I don't have to.
There is an open issue in celery github repo about this. Don't know if they are working on it though.
As a workaround you could add a lock for tasks so that only 1 instance of specific PeriodicTask will run at a time.
Something like:
if not cache.add('My-unique-lock-name', True, timeout=lock_timeout):
return
Figuring out lock timeout is well, tricky. We're using 0.9 * task run_every seconds if different celerybeats will try to run them at different times.
0.9 just to leave some margin (e.g. when celery is a little behind schedule once, then it is on schedule which would cause lock to still be active).
Then you can use celerybeat instance on all machines. Each task will be queued for every celerybeat instance but only one task of them will finish the run.
Tasks will still respect run_every this way - worst case scenario: tasks will run at 0.9*run_every speed.
One issue with this case: if tasks were queued but not processed at scheduled time (for example because queue processors was unavailable) - then lock may be placed at wrong time causing possibly 1 next task to simply not run. To go around this you would need some kind of detection mechanism whether task is more or less on time.
Still, this shouldn't be a common situation when using in production.
Another solution is to subclass celerybeat Scheduler and override its tick method. Then for every tick add a lock before processing tasks. This makes sure that only celerybeats with same periodic tasks won't queue same tasks multiple times. Only one celerybeat for each tick (one who wins the race condition) will queue tasks. In one celerybeat goes down, with next tick another one will win the race.
This of course can be used in combination with the first solution.
Of course for this to work cache backend needs to be replicated and/or shared for all of servers.
It's an old question but I hope it helps anyone.
I am trying to use beanstalk for queuing a large number of periodic
tasks (for example, tasks need processed every N minutes), for each
task, if the last queued job is not completed (not reserved, i mean)
when current job to be added, the last queued job should be replaced
with current job, in other words, only the latest queued job of a task
should be processed.
how can i achieve that using beanstalk?
Ideas i have got right now is:
for each task, use memcached store its latest timestamps (set this
when add jobs to queue),
every time the worker reserved a job successfully, it first checks
timestamps for this task in memcached,
if timestamps of the job is same as timestamps in memcached, then
process this job,
otherwise skip this job, and delete it from the queue.
So is there better ways to do such work? please give your suggestions,
thanks.
I found a memcache/beanstalk combination also the best solution for an implementation where I didnt want a newer but identical job entering a queue.
Until 'named jobs' are done and the software released, that may be one of the better solutions.