Happy to hear if others have some experiences with in-process (and what I
really want is to make some benchmarking to see how much overhead each
option involves. I'd say that the "coarseness" of the calls (with maybe
exception of Connection/variable retrieval etc. will make the
serialization/deserialization will have very little impact on performance
(but without actually checking it it's hard to say for sure). Another
option is if inter-process communication will turn into a problem (and I
saw people doing it in C++) - people did "rip" some parts of thrift to only
leave a "serialization/deserialization". But in our case - if we find that
either the need to have separate process or communication involves a lot of
overhead we could come back to the idea of delegating the calls via
decorators.

On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 2:22 PM Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> wrote:

> I looked at that too - and let me leave that as an option to explore in
> the first step. I will make a note.
>
> From what I checked - none of the current "ready-to-use" gRPC solutions
> have such an "in-process" option. I believe the "RPC framework re-use" for
> serialization/deserialization/transport might save a LOT of headache.
>
> However - Apache Thrift supports "shared-memory" transport. I still think
> it requires a separate process (To be confirmed).
> The gRPC  one supports local TCP and Unix Sockets only. The in-memory
> option is not there (though people asked for it
> https://github.com/grpc/grpc/issues/19959)
>
> J.
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 2:13 PM Ash Berlin-Taylor <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> That wasn't actually quite what I had in mind :)
>>
>> I was thinking that we _wouldn't_ go cross process at all, but in the
>> "local"/direct mode we will as-directly-as-possible call the handler code.
>> So for local/no-isolation we would still use the handler for the RPC, but
>> there it's just not "remote".
>>
>> -ash
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 16 2022 at 13:01:11 +0100, Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hey Everyone,
>>
>> Based on the feedback, I updated DAG-44
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-44+Airflow+Internal+API
>> - the "implementation notes" with improved approach.
>>
>> Ash had a good suggestion (which I really like) that instead of inventing
>> our own decorators and different way of handling the internal and external
>> communication for the "coarse" functions that require the database, we
>> could approach it  differently - namely we could always use RPC - no matter
>> if we are in DB isolation mode or "no isolation" mode. Of course in case of
>> the "no isolation" mode, the communication should have very low overhead
>> (local TCP or Sockets, no authorization). I looked at existing RPC
>> implementations we could use for that and I narrowed down potential choice
>> of technologies to gRPC and Apache Thrift for that.
>>
>> This approach has multiple advantages:
>>
>> * we can leverage existing RPC implementations (Thrift and gRPC are both
>> mature and have integration with HTTPS, various authentication options and
>> can be also run using local sockets)
>> * the code will be much simpler to maintain - we will use existing
>> serialization mechanisms from those protocols
>> * no custom code for communication needed - both Thrift and gRPC have all
>> that is needed for scalable, robust communication
>>
>> I think this way we will be able to implement a more robust and
>> maintainable solution much faster.
>>
>> I also reached out to Apache Beam (they have support for both gRPC and
>> Thrift and are in the process of transitioning - from Thrift to gRPC as
>> primary protocol and I am sure they have done a lot of analysis that can
>> help us to make the final decision.
>>
>> This approach changes only the implementation details of the AIP-44 - all
>> the rest is the same, the approach, deployment options remain untouched by
>> this change.
>>
>> If you have any comments to that - feel free/ I will also discuss it
>> today at the meeting and if there will be general consensus that the
>> direction is right I would love to start voting on AIP-44 ideally tomorrow
>> - so that next week we can start implementing it. I am not sure if we want
>> to make a final decision about gRPC/Thrift (maybe there are people who have
>> good experience both and can share it here?).
>>
>> I think more detailed POC and benchmarking might be the first step of the
>> AiP - where we make the final choice based on an attempt to implement POC
>> for both - but I am also happy to listen to those who have more experience
>> with both (and maybe Beam experience will help with that)..
>>
>> J.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 1:49 PM Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> The meeting is tomorrow :)/ Feel free to join I will also record it
>>> and publish minutes!
>>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 12:31 PM Giorgio Zoppi <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Hello Everyone,
>>> > is there any follow up of this meeting? I would like to participate if
>>> it's possible.
>>> > Best Regards,
>>> > Giorgio
>>> >
>>> > Il giorno mar 1 feb 2022 alle ore 15:29 Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]>
>>> ha scritto:
>>> >>
>>> >> Hello Everyone,
>>> >>
>>> >>  I think it's about the time for the next sig-multitenancy meeting :
>>> >>
>>> >> I created a doodle poll for next week - please mark your availability
>>> till Friday the 4th.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> https://doodle.com/poll/axvu2gz7zhv8ieye?utm_source=poll&utm_medium=link
>>> >>
>>> >> I think what the rough agenda will be:
>>> >>
>>> >> * AIP-43 Dag Processor Separation [1] - implementation progress -
>>> Mateusz
>>> >> * AIP-44 Airflow Internal API [2] - voting progress (hopefully) -
>>> Jarek
>>> >> * AIP-45 Remove double DAG parsing [3] -  discussion - Ping
>>> >> * AIP-46 Docker runtime isolation [4] - discussion - Ping
>>> >> * Also there are some ideas (not yet in AIP form) around optimizing
>>> DagProcessorLoop that might be good to talk about - also Ping.
>>> >>
>>> >> If there are any more proposals - feel free to ping me.
>>> >> I also encourage everyone to comment the AIP-45/46 proposals from
>>> Ping before the meeting.
>>> >>
>>> >> [1]
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-43+DAG+Processor+separation
>>> >> [2]
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-44+Airflow+Internal+API
>>> >> [3]
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-45+Remove+double+dag+parsing+in+airflow+run
>>> >> [4]
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-46+Add+support+for+docker+runtime+isolation+for+airflow+tasks+and+dag+parsing
>>> >>
>>> >> J.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Life is a chess game - Anonymous.
>>>
>>

Reply via email to