Edit for clarify my question:
I want to attach a python service on uwsgi using this feature (I can't understand the examples) and I also want to be able to communicate results between them. Below I present some context and also present my first thought on the communication matter, expecting maybe some advice or another approach to take.
I have an already developed python application that uses multiprocessing.Pool to run on demand tasks. The main reason for using the pool of workers is that I need to share several objects between them.
On top of that, I want to have a flask application that triggers tasks from its endpoints.
I've read several questions here on SO looking for possible drawbacks of using flask with python's multiprocessing module. I'm still a bit confused but this answer summarizes well both the downsides of starting a multiprocessing.Pool directly from flask and what my options are.
This answer shows an uWSGI feature to manage daemon/services. I want to follow this approach so I can use my already developed python application as a service of the flask app.
One of my main problems is that I look at the examples and do not know what I need to do next. In other words, how would I start the python app from there?
Another problem is about the communication between the flask app and the daemon process/service. My first thought is to use flask-socketIO to communicate, but then, if my server stops I need to deal with the connection... Is this a good way to communicate between server and service? What are other possible solutions?
Note:
I'm well aware of Celery, and I pretend to use it in a near future. In fact, I have an already developed node.js app, on which users perform actions that should trigger specific tasks from the (also) already developed python application. The thing is, I need a production-ready version as soon as possible, and instead of modifying the python application, that uses multiprocessing, I thought it would be faster to create a simple flask server to communicate with node.js through HTTP. This way I would only need to implement a flask app that instantiates the python app.
Edit:
Why do I need to share objects?
Simply because the creation of the objects in questions takes too long. Actually, the creation takes an acceptable amount of time if done once, but, since I'm expecting (maybe) hundreds to thousands of requests simultaneously having to load every object again would be something I want to avoid.
One of the objects is a scikit classifier model, persisted on a pickle file, which takes 3 seconds to load. Each user can create several "job spots" each one will take over 2k documents to be classified, each document will be uploaded on an unknown point in time, so I need to have this model loaded in memory (loading it again for every task is not acceptable).
This is one example of a single task.
Edit 2:
I've asked some questions related to this project before:
Bidirectional python-node communication
Python multiprocessing within node.js - Prints on sub process not working
Adding a shared object to a manager.Namespace
As stated, but to clarify: I think the best solution would be to use Celery, but in order to quickly have a production ready solution, I trying to use this uWSGI attach daemon solution
I can see the temptation to hang on to multiprocessing.Pool. I'm using it in production as part of a pipeline. But Celery (which I'm also using in production) is much better suited to what you're trying to do, which is distribute work across cores to a resource that's expensive to set up. Have N cores? Start N celery workers, which of which can load (or maybe lazy-load) the expensive model as a global. A request comes in to the app, launch a task (e.g., task = predict.delay(args), wait for it to complete (e.g., result = task.get()) and return a response. You're trading a little bit of time learning celery for saving having to write a bunch of coordination code.
Related
I have built a webserver written in python using the flask framework and psycopg2 and I have some questions about concurrent processing as it relates to dbs and the server itself. I am using gunicorn to start my app with
web:gunicorn app:app.
From my understanding a webserver such as this processes requests one at a time. So, if someone makes a get or post request to the server the server must finish responding to that get or post request before it can then move on to another request. If this is the case, then why would I need to make more than one connection cursor object? For example, if someone were making a post request that requires me to update something in the db, then my server can't process requests until I return out of that post end point anyway so that one connection object isn't bottle necking anything is it?
Ultimately, I am trying to allow my server to process a large number of requests simultaneously. In order to do so, I think I would first have to make multiple instances of my server, and THEN the connection pool comes into play right? I think in order to make multiple instances of my server (apologies if any terminologies are being used incorrectly here), I would do one of these things:
one way would be to: I would need to use multiple threads and if the machine my application is deployed on in the cloud has multiple cpu cores, then it can do this(?). However, I have read that python does not support "True multithreading" meaning a multi threaded program is not actually running concurrently, it's just switching back and forth between those threads really quickly, so would this really be any different than my set up currently?
the second way: use multiple gunicorn workers, or use multiple dynos. I think this route is the solution here, but I don't understand the theory on how to set this up at all. If I spawn additional gunicorn workers, what is happening behind the scenes? Would this still all run on my heroku application instance? Does the amount of cores I have access to on heroku affect this in anyway? Also, regardless of which way I pick, what would I be looking to change in the app.py code or would the change solely be inside the procfile?
Assuming I manage to set up multithreading or gunicorn workers, how would this then affect the connection pool set up/what should I do in regards to the connection pool? If anyone familiar with this can help provide some theory or explanations or some resources, I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks all!
From my experience with python here's what I've learned...
If you are using multiple threads or async then you need to use a pool or an async connection
If you have multiple processes and your code is strictly synchronous with no threads then a pool is not necessary. You can reuse a single connection for each process since they are not shared between each other.
Threads dont speed up execution speed in python usually since python will only ever run one thread at a time. Though they can help speed if threads need to block.
For web servers the true bottle neck is IO usually, meaning connecting to db or read file or w.e. Multiple process and making those process async gives the greatest performance. Starlette is a async version of Flask... kinda and is usually much faster when setup properly and using async libraries
The technology I would like to use in this example is Celery for queueing and python for component implementation.
Imagine a simple project hat exists of 2 components. One is a web app that connects to an API and gathers data. Component 2 is a processor that can then process the data. When the web app has gotten a piece of data from the API it is supposed to send a task into a task queue including the just crawled data which is then consumed by the processor to process the Data.
Whether or not this is a sensible way to go about a task like this is debatable and not the point of my question.
My question is, the tasks to process things are defined within the processor since they state what processing function shall be executed and the definition of that function is obviously within the processor. Now that the web app doesn't have access to the task definition how does he communicate the task to the processor?
Do you have to hold a copy of the source code of the processor within the web app?
Do you make the processor a dependency of the web app?
What is the best practice approach to handle such a scenario?
What you are describing is probably one of the most common use-cases for Celery. Just look how many people are asking Django/Flask + Celery questions here on StackOverflow... If you are a Django user, there is an entire section in the Celery documentation describing how to do exactly what you want. Things should be similar with other frameworks.
Do you have to hold a copy of the source code of the processor within the web app?
As far as I know you do not have to (I do not use any web framework) but it could be that you do need to because of some deeper integration with Celery. If your web application knows the Celery task name, and its parameters, it can schedule it to run without actually having access to the Python code. This is accomplished using send_task(task_name, ...).
Do you make the processor a dependency of the web app?
As I wrote above there are several ways to use it. If you want tighter integration then yes. If you just want to run task and get result using the send_task() than your web application should only depend on Celery.
What is the best practice approach to handle such a scenario?
Follow the Django guide. I advise you to run Celery independently, run some tasks, just so you learn about basic principles how it distributes the work, etc.
I am building REST API with Flask-restplus. One of my endpoints takes a file uploaded from client and run some analysis. The job uses up to 30 seconds. I don't want the job to block the main process. So the endpoint will return a response with 200 or 201 right away, the job can still be running. Results will be saved to database which will be retrieved later.
It seems I have two options for long-running jobs.
Threading
Task-queue
Threading is relatively simpler. But problem is, there is a limit of thread numbers for Flask app. In a standalone Python app, I could use a queue for the threads. But this is REST api, each request call is independent. I don't know if there is a way to maintain a global queue for that. So if the requests exceed the thread limit, it won't be able to take more requests.
Task-queue with Celery and Redis is probably better option. But this is just a proof of concept thing, and time line is kind of tight. Setting up Celery, Redis with Flask is not easy, I am having lots of trouble on my dev machine which is a Windows. It will be deployed on AWS which is kind of complex.
I wonder if there is a third option for this case?
I would HIGHLY recommend using Celery as you have already mentioned in your post. It is built exactly for this use case. Their docs are really informative and there are no shortage of examples online that can get you up and running quickly.
Additionally, I would say THIS would be an excellent first resource for you to start with.
Celery is a fantastic solution to this problem I have used quite successfully in the past to manage millions of jobs per day.
The only real downside is the initial learning curve and complexity of debugging when things go sour (it can happen, especially with millions of jobs).
I have a Django application written to handle displaying a webpage with data from a model based on the primary key passed in the URL, this all works fine and the Django component is working perfectly for the most part.
My question though is, and I have tried multiple methods such as using an AppConfig, is how I can make it so when the Django server boots up, code is called that would then create a separate thread which would then monitor an external source, logging valid data from that source as a model into the database.
I have the threading code written along with the section that creates the model and saves it in the database, my issue though is that if I try to use an AppConfig to create the thread which would then handle the code, I get an django.core.exceptions.AppRegistryNotReady: Apps aren't loaded yet. error and the server does not boot up.
Where would be appropriate to place the code? Is my approach incorrect to the matter?
Trying to use threading to get around blocking processes like web servers is an exercise in pain. I've done it before and it's fragile and often yields unpredictable results.
A much easier idea is to create a separate worker that runs in a totally different process that you start separately. It would have the same database access and could even use your Django models. This is how hosts like Heroku approach this problem. It comes with the added benefit of being able to be tested separately and doesn't need to run at all while you're working on your main Django application.
These days, with a multitude of virtualization options like Vagrant and containerization options like Docker, running parallel processes and workers is trivial. In the wild they may literally be running on separate servers with your database on yet another server. As was mentioned in the comments, starting a worker process could easily be delegated to a separate Django management command. This, in turn, can be fairly easily turned into separate worker processes by gunicorn on your web server.
I'm writing a Python application that needs both concurrency and asynchronicity. I've had a few recommendations each for Twisted and Celery, but I'm having trouble determining which is the better choice for this application (I have no experience with either).
The application (which is not a web app) primarily centers around making SOAP calls out to various third party APIs. To process a given piece of data, I'll need to call several APIs sequentially. And I'd like to be able to have a pool of "workers" for each of these APIs so I can make more than 1 call at a time to each API. Nothing about this should be very cpu-intensive.
More specifically, an external process will add a new "Message" to this application's database. I will need a job that watches for new messages, and then pushes them through the Process. The process will contain 4-5 steps that need to happen in order, but can happen completely asynchronously. Each step will take the message and act upon it in some way, typically adding details to the message. Each subsequent step will require the output from the step that precedes it. For most of these Steps, the work involved centers around calling out to a third-party API typically with a SOAP client, parsing the response, and updating the message. A few cases will involve the creation of a binary file (harder to pickle, if that's a factor). Ultimately, once the last step has completed, I'll need to update a flag in the database to indicate the entire process is done for this message.
Also, since each step will involve waiting for a network response, I'd like to increase overall throughput by making multiple simultaneous requests at each step.
Is either Celery or Twisted a more generally appropriate framework here? If they'll both solve the problem adequately, are there pros/cons to using one vs the other? Is there something else I should consider instead?
Is either Celery or Twisted a more generally appropriate framework here?
Depends on what you mean by "generally appropriate".
If they'll both solve the problem adequately, are there pros/cons to using one vs the other?
Not an exhaustive list.
Celery Pros:
Ready-made distributed task queue, with rate-limiting, re-tries, remote workers
Rapid development
Comparatively shallow learning curve
Celery Cons:
Heavyweight: multiple processes, external dependencies
Have to run a message passing service
Application "processes" will need to fit Celery's design
Twisted Pros:
Lightweight: single process and not dependent on a message passing service
Rapid development (for those familiar with it)
Flexible
Probably faster, no "internal" message passing required.
Twisted Cons:
Steep learning curve
Not necessarily as easy to add processing capacity later.
I'm familiar with both, and from what you've said, if it were me I'd pick Twisted.
I'd say you'll get it done quicker using Celery, but you'd learn more while doing it by using Twisted. If you have the time and inclination to follow the steep learning curve, I'd recommend you do this in Twisted.
Celery allows you to use asynchronous behavior of various async library like gevent and eventlet. So you can have best of both world.
Example using eventlet
https://github.com/celery/celery/tree/master/examples/eventlet
Example using gevent
https://github.com/celery/celery/tree/master/examples/gevent