Please find the reply inline.
Regards,
SURO
irc//freenode: suro-patz
On 12/16/15 7:19 PM, Adrian Otto wrote:
On Dec 16, 2015, at 6:24 PM, Joshua Harlow <harlo...@fastmail.com> wrote:
SURO wrote:
Hi all,
Please review and provide feedback on the following design proposal for
implementing the blueprint[1] on async-container-operations -
1. Magnum-conductor would have a pool of threads for executing the
container operations, viz. executor_threadpool. The size of the
executor_threadpool will be configurable. [Phase0]
2. Every time, Magnum-conductor(Mcon) receives a
container-operation-request from Magnum-API(Mapi), it will do the
initial validation, housekeeping and then pick a thread from the
executor_threadpool to execute the rest of the operations. Thus Mcon
will return from the RPC request context much faster without blocking
the Mapi. If the executor_threadpool is empty, Mcon will execute in a
manner it does today, i.e. synchronously - this will be the
rate-limiting mechanism - thus relaying the feedback of exhaustion.
[Phase0]
How often we are hitting this scenario, may be indicative to the
operator to create more workers for Mcon.
3. Blocking class of operations - There will be a class of operations,
which can not be made async, as they are supposed to return
result/content inline, e.g. 'container-logs'. [Phase0]
4. Out-of-order considerations for NonBlocking class of operations -
there is a possible race around condition for create followed by
start/delete of a container, as things would happen in parallel. To
solve this, we will maintain a map of a container and executing thread,
for current execution. If we find a request for an operation for a
container-in-execution, we will block till the thread completes the
execution. [Phase0]
Does whatever do these operations (mcon?) run in more than one process?
Yes, there may be multiple copies of magnum-conductor running on separate hosts.
Can it be requested to create in one process then delete in another? If so is
that map some distributed/cross-machine/cross-process map that will be
inspected to see what else is manipulating a given container (so that the
thread can block until that is not the case... basically the map is acting like
a operation-lock?)
Suro> @Josh, just after this, I had mentioned
"The approach above puts a prerequisite that operations for a given
container on a given Bay would go to the same Magnum-conductor instance."
Which suggested multiple instances of magnum-conductors. Also, my idea
for implementing this was as follows - magnum-conductors have an 'id'
associated, which carries the notion of [0 - (N-1)]th instance of
magnum-conductor. Given a request for a container operation, we would
always have the bay-id and container-id. I was planning to use
'hash(bay-id, key-id) modulo N' to be the logic to ensure that the right
instance picks up the intended request. Let me know if I am missing any
nuance of AMQP here.
That’s how I interpreted it as well. This is a race prevention technique so
that we don’t attempt to act on a resource until it is ready. Another way to
deal with this is check the state of the resource, and return a “not ready”
error if it’s not ready yet. If this happens in a part of the system that is
unattended by a user, we can re-queue the call to retry after a minimum delay
so that it proceeds only when the ready state is reached in the resource, or
terminated after a maximum number of attempts, or if the resource enters an
error state. This would allow other work to proceed while the retry waits in
the queue.
Suro> @Adrian, I think async model is to let user issue a sequence of
operations, which might be causally ordered. I suggest we should honor
the causal ordering than implementing the implicit retry model. As per
my above proposal, if we can arbitrate operations for a given bay, given
container - we should be able to achieve this ordering.
If it's just local in one process, then I have a library for u that can solve
the problem of correctly ordering parallel operations ;)
What we are aiming for is a bit more distributed.
Suro> +1
Adrian
This mechanism can be further refined to achieve more asynchronous
behavior. [Phase2]
The approach above puts a prerequisite that operations for a given
container on a given Bay would go to the same Magnum-conductor instance.
[Phase0]
5. The hand-off between Mcon and a thread from executor_threadpool can
be reflected through new states on the 'container' object. These states
can be helpful to recover/audit, in case of Mcon restart. [Phase1]
Other considerations -
1. Using eventlet.greenthread instead of real threads => This approach
would require further refactoring the execution code and embed yield
logic, otherwise a single greenthread would block others to progress.
Given, we will extend the mechanism for multiple COEs, and to keep the
approach straight forward to begin with, we will use 'threading.Thread'
instead of 'eventlet.greenthread'.
Refs:-
[1] -
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/magnum/+spec/async-container-operations
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
