I think option #3 is the most desired choice in performance’s point of view, 
because magnum is going to support multiple conductors and all conductors share 
the same DB. However, if each conductor runs its own thread for periodic task, 
we will end up to have multiple instances of tasks for doing the same job 
(syncing heat’s state to magnum’s DB). I think magnum should have only one 
instance of periodic task since the replicated instance of tasks will stress 
the computing and networking resources.

Best regards,

From: Qiao,Liyong [mailto:liyong.q...@intel.com]
Sent: June-14-15 9:38 PM
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Cc: qiaoliy...@gmail.com
Subject: [openstack-dev] [Magnum] Add periodic task threading for conductor 

hi magnum team,

I am planing to add periodic task for magnum conductor service, it will be good
to sync task status with heat and container service. and I have already have a 
patch[1], I'd like to start a discussion on the implement.

Currently, conductor service is an rpc server, and it has several handlers
    endpoints = [
all handler runs in the rpc server.

1. my patch [1] is to add periodic task functions in each handlers (if it 
requires such tasks)
and setup these functions when start rpc server, add them to a thread group.
so for example:

if we have task in bay_conductor.Handler() and docker_conductor.Handler(),
then adding 2 threads to current service's tg. each thread run it own periodic 

the advantage is we separate each handler's task job to separate thread.
but hongbin's concern is if it will has some impacts on horizontally 

2. another implement is put all tasks in a thread, this thread will run all
tasks(for bay,k8s, docker etc), just like sahara does see [2]

3 last one is start a new service in a separate process to run tasks.( I think 
will be too heavy/wasteful)

I'd like to get what's your suggestion, thanks in advance.

[1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/187090/4


BR, Eli(Li Yong)Qiao
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe

Reply via email to