Sergei, These are some great ideas -- I would classify at least half of them as pain points.
Folks! I suggest people (on the dev list) keep feeding this thread at least for the next 2 days. I can then float a survey based on these ideas and give the community a chance to vote so we can prioritize the wish list. -s On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 5:22 AM, Sergei Iakhnin <[email protected]> wrote: > I've been running Airflow on 1500 cores in the context of scientific > workflows for the past year and a half. Features that would be important to > me for 2.0: > > - Add FK to dag_run to the task_instance table on Postgres so that > task_instances can be uniquely attributed to dag runs. > - Ensure scheduler can be run continuously without needing restarts. Right > now it gets into some ill-determined bad state forcing me to restart it > every 20 minutes. > - Ensure scheduler can handle tens of thousands of active workflows. Right > now this results in extremely long scheduling times and inconsistent > scheduling even at 2 thousand active workflows. > - Add more flexible task scheduling prioritization. The default > prioritization is the opposite of the behaviour I want. I would prefer that > downstream tasks always have higher priority than upstream tasks to cause > entire workflows to tend to complete sooner, rather than scheduling tasks > from other workflows. Having a few scheduling prioritization strategies > would be beneficial here. > - Provide better support for manually-triggered DAGs on the UI i.e. by > showing them as queued. > - Provide some resource management capabilities via something like slots > that can be defined on workers and occupied by tasks. Using celery's > concurrency parameter at the airflow server level is too coarse-grained as > it forces all workers to be the same, and does not allow proper resource > management when different workflow tasks have different resource > requirements thus hurting utilization (a worker could run 8 parallel tasks > with small memory footprint, but only 1 task with large memory footprint > for instance). > > With best regards, > > Sergei. > > > On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 2:00 PM Ryabchuk, Pavlo < > [email protected]> > wrote: > > > -1. We extremely rely on data profiling, as a pipeline health monitoring > > tool > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Chris Riccomini [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Saturday, November 19, 2016 1:57 AM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: Airflow 2.0 > > > > > RIP out the charting application and the data profiler > > > > Yes please! +1 > > > > On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 2:41 PM, Maxime Beauchemin < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > Another point that may be controversial for Airflow 2.0: RIP out the > > > charting application and the data profiler. Even though it's nice to > > > have it there, it's just out of scope and has major security > > issues/implications. > > > > > > I'm not sure how popular it actually is. We may need to run a survey > > > at some point around this kind of questions. > > > > > > Max > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 2:39 PM, Maxime Beauchemin < > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > >> Using FAB's Model, we get pretty much all of that (REST API, > > >> auth/perms, > > >> CRUD) for free: > > >> https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ffla > > >> sk-appbuilder.readthedocs.io%2Fen%2Flatest%2F&data=01%7C01%7C%7C0064f > > >> 74fd0d940ab732808d4100e9c3f%7C6d4034cd72254f72b85391feaea64919%7C1&sd > > >> ata=uIJcFlm02IJ0Yo2cYLxAJZlkbCF2ZMk6dR%2FkhazZwVE%3D&reserved=0 > > >> quickhowto.html?highlight=rest#exposed-methods > > >> > > >> I'm pretty intimate with FAB since I use it (and contributed to it) > > >> for Superset/Caravel. > > >> > > >> All that's needed is to derive FAB's model class instead of > > >> SqlAlchemy's model class (which FAB's model wraps and adds > > >> functionality to and is 100% compatible AFAICT). > > >> > > >> Max > > >> > > >> On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 2:07 PM, Chris Riccomini > > >> <[email protected]> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >>> > It may be doable to run this as a different package > > >>> `airflow-webserver`, an > > >>> > alternate UI at first, and to eventually rip out the old UI off of > > >>> > the > > >>> main > > >>> > package. > > >>> > > >>> This is the same strategy that I was thinking of for AIRFLOW-85. You > > >>> can build the new UI in parallel, and then delete the old one later. > > >>> I really think that a REST interface should be a pre-req to any > > >>> large/new UI changes, though. Getting unified so that everything is > > >>> driven through REST will be a big win. > > >>> > > >>> On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 1:51 PM, Maxime Beauchemin > > >>> <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>> > A multi-tenant UI with composable roles on top of granular > > permissions. > > >>> > > > >>> > Migrating from Flask-Admin to Flask App Builder would be an > > >>> > easy-ish win (since they're both Flask). FAB Provides a good > > >>> > authentication and permission model that ships out-of-the-box with > > >>> > a REST api. Suffice to define FAB models (derivative of > > >>> > SQLAlchemy's model) and you get a set > > >>> of > > >>> > perms for the model (can_show, can_list, can_add, can_change, > > >>> can_delete, > > >>> > ...) and a set of CRUD REST endpoints. It would also allow us to > > >>> > rip out the authentication backend code out of Airflow and rely on > > FAB for that. > > >>> > Also every single view gets permissions auto-created for it, and > > >>> > there > > >>> are > > >>> > easy way to define row-level type filters based on user > permissions. > > >>> > > > >>> > It may be doable to run this as a different package > > >>> `airflow-webserver`, an > > >>> > alternate UI at first, and to eventually rip out the old UI off of > > >>> > the > > >>> main > > >>> > package. > > >>> > > > >>> > https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2 > > >>> > Fflask-appbuilder.readthedocs.io%2Fen%2Flatest%2F&data=01%7C01%7C% > > >>> > 7C0064f74fd0d940ab732808d4100e9c3f%7C6d4034cd72254f72b85391feaea64 > > >>> > 919%7C1&sdata=8mUPRcf4%2FQUDSbju%2BjLLImalhZeU7tOA%2BFpeO%2BjcEs8% > > >>> > 3D&reserved=0 > > >>> > > > >>> > I'd love to carve some time and lead this. > > >>> > > > >>> > On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 1:32 PM, Chris Riccomini > > >>> > <[email protected] > > >>> > > > >>> > wrote: > > >>> > > > >>> >> Full-fledged REST API (that the UI also uses) would be great in > 2.0. > > >>> >> > > >>> >> On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 6:26 AM, David Kegley <[email protected]> > wrote: > > >>> >> > Hi All, > > >>> >> > > > >>> >> > We have been using Airflow heavily for the last couple months > > >>> >> > and > > >>> it’s > > >>> >> been great so far. Here are a few things we’d like to see > > >>> >> prioritized > > >>> in > > >>> >> 2.0. > > >>> >> > > > >>> >> > 1) Role based access to DAGs: > > >>> >> > We would like to see better role based access through the UI. > > >>> There’s a > > >>> >> related ticket out there but it hasn’t seen any action in a few > > >>> >> months > > >>> >> > https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2 > > >>> >> > F%2Fissues.apache.org%2Fjira%2Fbrowse%2FAIRFLOW-85&data=01%7C01 > > >>> >> > %7C%7C0064f74fd0d940ab732808d4100e9c3f%7C6d4034cd72254f72b85391 > > >>> >> > feaea64919%7C1&sdata=VsgwHZxr0%2FDQN1jeBTJsfyIGu%2FZkkWhzAvxNvB > > >>> >> > N531k%3D&reserved=0 > > >>> >> > > > >>> >> > We use a templating system to create/deploy DAGs dynamically > > >>> >> > based on > > >>> >> some directory/file structure. This allows analysts to quickly > > >>> >> deploy > > >>> and > > >>> >> schedule their ETL code without having to interact with the > > >>> >> Airflow installation directly. It would be great if those same > > >>> >> analysts could access to their own DAGs in the UI so that they > > >>> >> can clear DAG runs, > > >>> mark > > >>> >> success, etc. while keeping them away from our core ETL and other > > >>> >> people's/organization's DAGs. Some of this can be accomplished > > >>> >> with > > >>> ‘filter > > >>> >> by owner’ but it doesn’t address the use case where a DAG can be > > >>> maintained > > >>> >> by multiple users in the same organization when they have > > >>> >> separate > > >>> Airflow > > >>> >> user accounts. > > >>> >> > > > >>> >> > 2) An option to turn off backfill: > > >>> >> > https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2 > > >>> >> > F%2Fissues.apache.org%2Fjira%2Fbrowse%2FAIRFLOW-558&data=01%7C0 > > >>> >> > 1%7C%7C0064f74fd0d940ab732808d4100e9c3f%7C6d4034cd72254f72b8539 > > >>> >> > 1feaea64919%7C1&sdata=Xkz7dTkFMEa4np19m4ML1VajVqVPNy%2BVSS5Y%2B > > >>> >> > Sm8Odk%3D&reserved=0 For cases where a DAG does an insert > > >>> >> > overwrite on a table every day. > > >>> >> This might be a realistic option for the current version but I > > >>> >> just > > >>> wanted > > >>> >> to call attention to this feature request. > > >>> >> > > > >>> >> > Best, > > >>> >> > David > > >>> >> > > > >>> >> > On Nov 17, 2016, at 6:19 PM, Maxime Beauchemin < > > >>> >> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > > wrote: > > >>> >> > > > >>> >> > *This is a brainstorm email thread about Airflow 2.0!* > > >>> >> > > > >>> >> > I wanted to share some ideas around what I would like to do in > > >>> Airflow > > >>> >> 2.0 > > >>> >> > and would love to hear what others are thinking. I'll compile > > >>> >> > the > > >>> ideas > > >>> >> > that are shared in this thread in a Wiki once the conversation > > fades. > > >>> >> > > > >>> >> > ------------------------------------------- > > >>> >> > > > >>> >> > First idea, to get the conversation started: > > >>> >> > > > >>> >> > *Breaking down the package* > > >>> >> > `pip install airflow-common airflow-scheduler airflow-webserver > > >>> >> > airflow-operators-googlecloud ...` > > >>> >> > > > >>> >> > It seems to me like we're getting to a point where having > > >>> >> > different repositories and different packages would make things > > >>> >> > much easier in > > >>> all > > >>> >> > sorts of ways. For instance the web server is a lot less > > >>> >> > sensitive > > >>> than > > >>> >> the > > >>> >> > scheduler, and changes to operators should/could be deployed at > > >>> >> > will, independently from the main package. People in their > > >>> >> > environment > > >>> could > > >>> >> > upgrade only certain packages when needed. Travis builds would > > >>> >> > be > > >>> more > > >>> >> > targeted, and take less time, ... > > >>> >> > > > >>> >> > Also, the whole current "extra_requires" approach to optional > > >>> >> dependencies > > >>> >> > (in setup.py) is kind getting out-of-hand. > > >>> >> > > > >>> >> > Of course `pip install airflow` would bring in a collection of > > >>> >> sub-packages > > >>> >> > similar in functionality to what it does now, perhaps without > > >>> >> > so many operators you probably don't need in your environment. > > >>> >> > > > >>> >> > The release process is the main pain-point and the biggest risk > > >>> >> > for > > >>> the > > >>> >> > project, and I feel like this a solid solution to address it. > > >>> >> > > > >>> >> > Max > > >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > > -- > > Sergei >
