On 11/12/14 08:26, Murugan, Visnusaran wrote:
In case of rollback where we have to cleanup earlier version of resources,
we could get the order from old template. We'd prefer not to have a graph
In theory you could get it by keeping old templates around. But that means
keeping a lot of templates, and it will be hard to keep track of when you want
to delete them. It also means that when starting an update you'll need to
load every existing previous version of the template in order to calculate the
dependencies. It also leaves the dependencies in an ambiguous state when a
resource fails, and although that can be worked around it will be a giant pain
Agree that looking to all templates for a delete is not good. But baring
Complexity, we feel we could achieve it by way of having an update and a
delete stream for a stack update operation. I will elaborate in detail in the
etherpad sometime tomorrow :)
I agree that I'd prefer not to have a graph table. After trying a couple of
different things I decided to store the dependencies in the Resource table,
where we can read or write them virtually for free because it turns out that
we are always reading or updating the Resource itself at exactly the same
Not sure how this will work in an update scenario when a resource does not
and its dependencies do.
We'll always update the requirements, even when the properties don't change.
Also taking care of deleting resources in order will
be an issue.
It works fine.
This implies that there will be different versions of a resource which
will even complicate further.
No it doesn't, other than the different versions we already have due to
This approach reduces DB queries by waiting for completion notification
on a topic. The drawback I see is that delete stack stream will be huge as it
will have the entire graph. We can always dump such data in
ResourceLock.data Json and pass a simple flag "load_stream_from_db" to
converge RPC call as a workaround for delete operation.
This seems to be essentially equivalent to my 'SyncPoint' proposal, with
the key difference that the data is stored in-memory in a Heat engine rather
than the database.
I suspect it's probably a mistake to move it in-memory for similar
reasons to the argument Clint made against synchronising the marking off
of dependencies in-memory. The database can handle that and the problem
of making the DB robust against failures of a single machine has already been
solved by someone else. If we do it in-memory we are just creating a single
point of failure for not much gain. (I guess you could argue it doesn't matter,
since if any Heat engine dies during the traversal then we'll have to kick off
another one anyway, but it does limit our options if that changes in the
future.) [Murugan, Visnusaran] Resource completes, removes itself from
resource_lock and notifies engine. Engine will acquire parent lock and initiate
parent only if all its children are satisfied (no child entry in resource_lock).
This will come in place of Aggregator.
Yep, if you s/resource_lock/SyncPoint/ that's more or less exactly what I did.
The three differences I can see are:
1) I think you are proposing to create all of the sync points at the start of
traversal, rather than on an as-needed basis. This is probably a good idea. I
didn't consider it because of the way my prototype evolved, but there's now
no reason I can see not to do this.
If we could move the data to the Resource table itself then we could even
get it for free from an efficiency point of view.
+1. But we will need engine_id to be stored somewhere for recovery purpose
(easy to be queried format).
Yeah, so I'm starting to think you're right, maybe the/a Lock table is
the right thing to use there. We could probably do it within the
resource table using the same select-for-update to set the engine_id,
but I agree that we might be starting to jam too much into that one table.
Sync points are created as-needed. Single resource is enough to restart that
I think there is a disconnect in our understanding. I will detail it as well in
OK, that would be good.
2) You're using a single list from which items are removed, rather than two
lists (one static, and one to which items are added) that get compared.
Assuming (1) then this is probably a good idea too.
Yeah. We have a single list per active stream which work by removing
Complete/satisfied resources from it.
I went to change this and then remembered why I did it this way: the
sync point is also storing data about the resources that are triggering
it. Part of this is the RefID and attributes, and we could replace that
by storing that data in the Resource itself and querying it rather than
having it passed in via the notification. But the other part is the
ID/key of those resources, which we _need_ to know in order to update
the requirements in case one of them has been replaced and thus the
graph doesn't reflect it yet. (Or, for that matter, we need it to know
where to go looking for the RefId and/or attributes if they're in the
DB.) So we have to store some data, we can't just remove items from the
required list (although we could do that as well).
3) You're suggesting to notify the engine unconditionally and let the engine
decide if the list is empty. That's probably not a good idea - not only does it
require extra reads, it introduces a race condition that you then have to solve
(it can be solved, it's just more work).
Since the update to remove a child from the list is atomic, it's best to just
trigger the engine only if the list is now empty.
No. Notify only if stream has something to be processed. The newer
Approach based on db lock will be that the last resource will initiate its
This is opposite to what our Aggregator model had suggested.
OK, I think we're on the same page on this one then.
It's not clear to me how the 'streams' differ in practical terms from
just passing a serialisation of the Dependencies object, other than
being incomprehensible to me ;). The current Dependencies
(1) is a very generic implementation of a DAG, (2) works and has plenty of
unit tests, (3) has, with I think one exception, a pretty straightforward API,
(4) has a very simple serialisation, returned by the edges() method, which
can be passed back into the constructor to recreate it, and (5) has an API that
is to some extent relied upon by resources, and so won't likely be removed
outright in any event.
Whatever code we need to handle dependencies ought to just build on
this existing implementation.
[Murugan, Visnusaran] Our thought was to reduce payload size
(template/graph). Just planning for worst case scenario (million resource
stack) We could always dump them in ResourceLock.data to be loaded by
If there's a smaller representation of a graph than a list of edges then I don't
know what it is. The proposed stream structure certainly isn't it, unless you
mean as an alternative to storing the entire graph once for each resource. A
better alternative is to store it once centrally - in my current implementation
it is passed down through the trigger messages, but since only one traversal
can be in progress at a time it could just as easily be stored in the Stack
of the database at the slight cost of an extra write.
Agree that edge is the smallest representation of a graph. But it does not give
us a complete picture without doing a DB lookup. Our assumption was to store
streams in IN_PROGRESS resource_lock.data column. This could be in resource
That's true, but I think in practice at any point where we need to look
at this we will always have already loaded the Stack from the DB for
some other reason, so we actually can get it for free. (See detailed
discussion in my reply to Anant.)
I'm not opposed to doing that, BTW. In fact, I'm really interested in your input
on how that might help make recovery from failure more robust. I know
Anant mentioned that not storing enough data to recover when a node dies
was his big concern with my current approach.
With streams, We feel recovery will be easier. All we need is a trigger :)
I can see that by both creating all the sync points at the start of the
and storing the dependency graph in the database instead of letting it flow
through the RPC messages, we would be able to resume a traversal where it
left off, though I'm not sure what that buys us.
And I guess what you're suggesting is that by having an explicit lock with the
engine ID specified, we can detect when a resource is stuck in IN_PROGRESS
due to an engine going down? That's actually pretty interesting.
Based on our call on Thursday, I think you're taking the idea of the Lock
table too literally. The point of referring to locks is that we can use the same
concepts as the Lock table relies on to do atomic updates on a particular row
of the database, and we can use those atomic updates to prevent race
conditions when implementing SyncPoints/Aggregators/whatever you want
to call them. It's not that we'd actually use the Lock table itself, which
implements a mutex and therefore offers only a much slower and more
stateful way of doing what we want (lock mutex, change data, unlock
[Murugan, Visnusaran] Are you suggesting something like a select-for-
update in resource table itself without having a lock table?
Yes, that's exactly what I was suggesting.
DB is always good for sync. But we need to be careful not to overdo it.
Yeah, I see what you mean now, it's starting to _feel_ like there'd be
too many things mixed together in the Resource table. Are you aware of
some concrete harm that might cause though? What happens if we overdo
it? Is select-for-update on a huge row more expensive than the whole
overhead of manipulating the Lock?
Just trying to figure out if intuition is leading me astray here.
Will update etherpad by tomorrow.
OpenStack-dev mailing list